Berry v. State
313 Ga. App. 516
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Berry, a convicted felon, was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon; he moved to suppress firearm evidence as fruit of an illegal search of his car.
- Georgia Supreme Court in Tate v. State established three appellate-review principles for suppression rulings: trial judge as trier of fact; findings reviewed for clear error; evidence construed in favor of upholding the ruling.
- Officers arrived at Berry’s friend’s residence; resident granted entry and they searched the home for a suspect, observing indicators of narcotics distribution.
- Berry and others were arrested; Berry was handcuffed; during arrest, he consented to a search of his vehicle, and a firearm was found.
- Berry argued the warrantless vehicle search violated the Fourth Amendment; the state argued consent justified it; voluntariness of consent and Miranda advisement were at issue.
- The trial court admitted the firearm evidence; on appeal, the court held consent was voluntary under totality-of-circumstances, and Berry lacked standing to challenge the entry of the third party’s residence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Berry's consent to search the vehicle voluntary? | Berry argues consent was not voluntary. | State contends consent was voluntarily given under totality of circumstances. | Consent was voluntary; firearm evidence admissible. |
| Did Berry have standing to challenge the home's entry/search of his friend’s residence? | Berry asserts Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the entry/search. | Only Berry’s vehicle search is at issue; standing to challenge residence entry is lacking. | Berry lacked standing to challenge the third-party residence search. |
| Does Miranda failure affect the validity of a voluntary consent to search? | Berry notes Miranda warnings were not given before consent. | Miranda warnings are not a prerequisite to voluntary consent to search. | Voluntariness determinations rely on totality of the circumstances; Miranda warnings are not required for valid consent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tate v. State, 264 Ga. 53 (1994) (three-part framework for reviewing suppression rulings)
- Dean v. State, 250 Ga. 77 (1982) (factors for totality of circumstances in consent analyses)
- Brooks v. State, 285 Ga. 424 (2009) (coercion and authority misrepresentation considerations in consent)
- Park v. State, 308 Ga. App. 648 (2011) (coercion analysis under totality of circumstances; officers’ conduct factors)
- White v. State, 263 Ga. 94 (1993) (suppression hearing transcripts may be considered on review)