Caffee v. State
303 Ga. 557
Ga.2018Background
- On Nov. 1, 2015 Deputy Patterson stopped Richard Caffee for an expired tag and smelled raw marijuana coming from Caffee's truck. Patterson was experienced in detecting marijuana odor.
- Patterson asked Caffee about marijuana; Caffee denied it. Patterson waited for backup, patted Caffee (no weapons found), then searched the truck and found two small empty bottles that smelled of marijuana.
- The odor dissipated while the truck doors were open and Caffee was outside; when Patterson later approached Caffee the odor returned. Patterson then searched Caffee’s outer clothing and found a small bag with less than an ounce of marijuana in his shirt pocket.
- Caffee did not consent to the searches; he was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana and driving with an expired tag.
- The trial court denied Caffee's motion to suppress, finding probable cause to search Caffee under the totality of the circumstances. The Court of Appeals affirmed based on probable cause to search. Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probable cause alone authorizes a warrantless search | Caffee: officer lacked authority to search his person without a warrant; probable cause alone insufficient | State: probable cause to search justified the warrantless search | Probable cause alone does not justify a warrantless search; an exception to the warrant requirement is required |
| Whether there was probable cause to arrest Caffee for possession of marijuana before the search | Caffee: facts did not localize odor to him; no probable cause to arrest prior to search | State: odor localization, discovery of marijuana-scented bottles, and return of odor when near Caffee provided probable cause to arrest | Court held there was probable cause to arrest based on localization and corroborating facts |
| Whether a search of Caffee’s person was valid though it preceded a formal arrest | Caffee: pre-arrest search cannot stand merely because an arrest later occurred | State: search-incident-to-arrest applies where probable cause to arrest existed before the search | Search incident to arrest authorized the pre-arrest search because probable cause to arrest preexisted the search |
| Whether the Court of Appeals exceeded its proper scope of review | Caffee: appellate court relied on credibility-based facts not found by trial court | State: appellate reliance on uncontradicted testimony was permissible | Court held the Court of Appeals erred by making its own credibility findings but affirmed the result on proper grounds (probable cause to arrest) |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (scope and limits of investigative stops and pat-downs)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978) (warrant requirement and exceptions)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (search-incident-to-arrest doctrine limits)
- Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (1980) (pre-arrest searches permissible if probable cause to arrest preexisted search)
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (probable cause alone does not justify warrantless searches)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (automobile search doctrine and scope)
- Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008) (probable cause to arrest authorizes warrantless arrest and attendant search)
- Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013) (probable cause standard explained as a practical, commonsense assessment)
- Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968) (search-incident-to-arrest precedential limits)
- Hughes v. State, 296 Ga. 744 (2015) (trial court as factfinder on suppression motions)
- Kennebrew v. State, 299 Ga. 864 (2016) (search-incident-to-arrest scope under Georgia law)
- Douglas v. State, 303 Ga. 178 (2018) (odor of marijuana as basis for probable cause to search)