Jones v. State
291 Ga. 35
| Ga. | 2012Background
- Jones was convicted of DUI; Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion.
- A Georgia State Patrol roadblock in Coweta County led to Jones turning into a strip mall parking lot.
- Trooper blocked the parking lot exit with his patrol car and questioned the SUV driver first, then approached Jones.
- Trooper smelled alcohol and marijuana and arrested Jones after field sobriety tests and a breath/alco-sensor reading.
- Jones moved to suppress the results, arguing the stop and detention lacked reasonable suspicion; trial court denied the motion.
- Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether the initial encounter was a seizure and whether there was reasonable suspicion to stop Jones; Court held the detention was a seizure and there was no reasonable suspicion, reversing the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial encounter was a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion | Jones | State | Seizure occurred; no reasonable suspicion found |
| Whether the traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion | Jones lacked driving violation evidence | SUV driver’s earlier abrupt turn created suspicion | No reasonable suspicion; stop invalid; evidence suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.H., 285 Ga. 51 (Ga. 2009) (Fourth Amendment verbal encounters and seizures guidance)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1991) (consensual encounters can become seizures under certain circumstances)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1980) (test for when a person is seized by police)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (U.S. 2007) (seizure occurs when a person’s freedom of movement is restrained by police)
- Jorgensen v. State, 207 Ga.App. 545 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993) (no reasonable suspicion from lack of evidence of driving maneuver)
- McKinley v. State, 213 Ga.App. 738 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994) (seizure when officer blocks exit and activates lights)
- United States v. Nasser, 555 F.3d 722 (9th Cir. 2009) (detention must be willful for seizure analysis)
