337 Ga. App. 304
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- Police executed a warrant at an apartment leased by Corey Coleman on Dec. 8, 2011, and found cocaine, marijuana, marijuana plants, scales, baggies, and a cultivation notebook.
- Prior to the warrant, officers encountered William Wilborn in the complex, seized suspected cocaine and marijuana from him after a struggle and flight, and found a handgun on him; field tests indicated presence of cocaine and marijuana.
- Wilborn told officers he had bought marijuana from the specific apartment, described seeing two pounds of marijuana, two shotguns, a black male with a handgun, and a black female in the unit; officers smelled a strong odor of unburned marijuana at the apartment door.
- A magistrate issued a search warrant based on the affiant officer’s written affidavit (no oral testimony), and the search yielded the contraband used at trial.
- Coleman was convicted of possession of cocaine, manufacturing marijuana, and possession with intent to distribute; he moved for a new trial claiming ineffective assistance because trial counsel did not file a suppression motion or object to admission of the evidence.
- The trial court denied the motion for new trial; on appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding counsel was not deficient because a suppression motion would have been meritless under the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Coleman) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether affidavit supported probable cause for a warrant | Affidavit failed to show informant veracity and relied improperly on odor of marijuana; omissions (e.g., informant convictions) undermined probable cause | Affidavit contained ample corroboration (flight, seized drugs and gun, field tests, odor at door, directions to unit) supporting a substantial basis for probable cause | Probable cause existed under Gates totality test; magistrate had substantial basis to issue warrant |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not filing a suppression motion | Counsel should have moved to suppress; omission prejudiced defense because warrant was defective | Counsel reasonably declined because suppression motion would have been meritless; defense strategy focused on another occupant theory | No ineffective assistance — failure to file a meritless motion is not deficient; Coleman did not show suppression likely would have been granted |
| Whether officers’ smelling marijuana at the door was an unlawful search under Jardines | Smell at the door was an investigatory search implicating Jardines; evidence gained thereby should be suppressed | Knocking/approaching the door and smelling odor is no more than a private citizen might do and is permitted; Jardines (dog sniff on porch) is distinguishable | Jardines inapplicable; officers lawfully approached/knocked and detection of odor was properly considered by magistrate |
| Whether omission of informant’s prior convictions in affidavit required suppression | Magistrate would have found informant less credible if informed of Wilborn’s convictions and denied the warrant | Omission of prior convictions, standing alone, is not determinative where independent corroboration offsets omissions | Omission did not render affidavit insufficient given corroborating facts; suppression would not have been granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong standard)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality-of-circumstances probable-cause analysis)
- State v. Palmer, 285 Ga. 75 (deference to magistrate; warrants preferred)
- State v. Kazmierczak, 331 Ga. App. 817 (limits on relying solely on marijuana odor for probable cause)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (porch drug-dog sniff is a Fourth Amendment search)