Hamlett v. State
323 Ga. App. 221
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- In Aug–Sept 2010, after a residential burglary, police traced a pickup’s tag to Jalim Hamlett and obtained a Cobb County court order authorizing surreptitious installation and continuous monitoring of a GPS device on his truck.
- The detective’s affidavit relied on (a) a seven‑month‑old warrant charging Jalim with receiving stolen appliances from a Jan. 2010 burglary, and (b) a homeowner’s report that a suspicious man got into a pickup registered to Jalim the night after an Aug. 5 burglary.
- Police monitored the GPS for ~15 days; when signals showed the truck stopped at a Sandy Springs residence for ~28 minutes, officers issued a BOLO and later stopped the truck, arresting Jalim, his brother Salim (a passenger), and a third person.
- Officers observed alleged stolen items in the truck bed and seized evidence; all three were tried jointly and Jalim was also convicted of two misdemeanor traffic offenses (improper tag, inoperable brake light).
- The Hamletts moved to suppress, arguing the GPS installation/monitoring and the subsequent prolonged detention were unlawful; the trial court denied suppression and the convictions followed. On appeal the court reversed the burglary and possession convictions but affirmed the traffic convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hamlett) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of GPS installation/monitoring | Warrant/order was properly issued on probable cause; GPS monitoring akin to visual surveillance | Affidavit lacked probable cause for prolonged, surreptitious GPS search; installation/monitoring violated Fourth Amendment | Installation/monitoring was a Fourth Amendment search under United States v. Jones; Cobb affidavit did not establish probable cause — GPS use unlawful; evidence suppressed |
| Validity of traffic stop (derived from GPS) | Stop was lawful because officers had articulable suspicion/probable cause from GPS/BOLO and later observed traffic violations/plain‑view evidence | Stop was tainted by the illegal GPS monitoring; without GPS there was no reasonable suspicion to stop — evidence should be suppressed | Traffic stop was fruit of illegal GPS use; evidence from that stop supporting burglary/possession convictions inadmissible; those convictions reversed |
| Sufficiency of evidence for burglary/possession | Seized items and in‑truck evidence supported convictions | Evidence was obtained from unlawful search/stop and is therefore inadmissible; remaining evidence insufficient | With suppressed evidence, no legally sufficient proof of burglary/possession — convictions reversed |
| Traffic citations (improper tag, brake light) | Officer observed traffic violations independent of GPS | Stop was initiated because of GPS; but violations observed during follow and stop | Evidence of tag/brake violations admissible and sufficient — those misdemeanor convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (installation and use of GPS on vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) (use of a beeper for short‑term monitoring distinguished from prolonged GPS tracking)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (passengers are "seized" by a traffic stop and may challenge its legality)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality‑of‑the‑circumstances test for probable cause and deference to magistrate’s common‑sense determination)
- State v. Brantley, 264 Ga. App. 152 (2003) (staleness and lack of nexus can defeat probable cause for a warrant)
- Marlow v. State, 288 Ga. 769 (2011) (officers may draw reasonable inferences; ‘‘fair presumption’’ standard discussed)