Hammont v. State
309 Ga. App. 395
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Hammont, a passenger, rode with Eric Schwartz in a silver Pontiac Grand Prix; county drug squad had a BOLO targeting Schwartz and Hammont for prescription narcotics activity.
- An officer, aware of the BOLO, stopped the vehicle for speeding (40 mph in a 35 mph zone) in a residential area.
- Schwartz exhibited nervous behavior (hands shaking, lack of eye contact) after the stop; the officer attributed this to potential drug activity based on the BOLO and delay before stopping.
- Consent to search the vehicle was obtained from Schwartz; marijuana residue and rolling papers were found; Hammont later tested positive for marijuana use.
- Hammont moved to suppress the stop as unlawfully extended into a search without requisite reasonable suspicion; the trial court denied the motion, concluding there was reasonable suspicion to search.
- On appeal, the court reviewed de novo the legality of the stop and its extensibility, upholding the trial court’s denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the traffic stop valid at its inception? | Hammont contends the stop was invalid due to lack of probable cause and unlawfully extended detention. | State argues speeding provided a lawful traffic stop and any ulterior motive does not invalidate the stop. | Yes; stop valid based on speeding. |
| Was the stop unlawfully extended into a search absent reasonable suspicion? | Hammont asserts the search stemmed from an unlawful extension without reasonable suspicion for drug activity. | State maintains continued questioning/search consent was permissible during the stop and did not prolong it unlawfully. | No; extension permissible; search valid by consent. |
| Did the questioning and consent timing violate Fourth Amendment limits on the stop? | Hammont argues the questioning duration and delay before obtaining consent prolonged the stop unlawfully. | State contends questioning was almost instantaneous and did not add substantive delay. | No; questioning did not prolong the stop beyond purpose. |
Key Cases Cited
- Montoya v. State, 232 Ga.App. 24, 24, 499 S.E.2d 680 (1998) (Ga. App. 1998) (limits on seizure duration during stops; reasonable suspicion standards)
- Menezes v. State, 286 Ga.App. 280, 648 S.E.2d 741 (2007) (Ga. App. 2007) (standing and scope of passenger challenge to search)
- Hayes v. State, 292 Ga.App. 724, 730(2)(e), 665 S.E.2d 422 (2008) (Ga. App. 2008) (until duration of stop and scope of questions; consent searches fine within stop)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (U.S. Supreme Court 1996) (police may stop for a traffic violation regardless of ulterior motives)
- Maxwell v. State, 249 Ga.App. 747, 748, 549 S.E.2d 534 (2001) (Ga. App. 2001) (recognizes traffic stop permissibility and related searches)
- State v. Davis, 283 Ga.App. 200, 203(2), 641 S.E.2d 205 (2007) (Ga. App. 2007) (supporting citation on stop and search standards)