Middleton v. State, 316 Ga. 808

On Feb. 15, 2020, Kingsland PD Officer Amanda Graw stopped Patrick Middleton outside Kingsland city limits in Camden County, smelled marijuana, searched the vehicle, found a controlled substance, and arrested Middleton.
Middleton moved to suppress evidence, arguing a Kingsland officer lacks power to arrest outside city limits under OCGA § 40-13-30.
Officer Graw testified she had been deputized by the Camden County Sheriff in 2013 while riding with CCSO deputies but had never worked paid CCSO shifts or been paid by CCSO.
The trial court granted suppression, finding the State had not shown that extra-territorial jurisdiction had been conferred on Officer Graw and noting insufficient evidence about the scope/content of the 2013 deputization.
The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding Graw’s testimony of deputization was sufficient to show she acted as a deputy at the time of the arrest (State v. Middleton, 363 Ga. App. 851).
The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Court of Appeals opinion, and remanded with directions that the trial court clarify whether its ruling rested on a factual finding that Graw’s deputization was limited to particular cases.

Issue	Middleton's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether a Kingsland officer may lawfully stop/search outside city limits	Graw lacked authority because she was a municipal officer and had no valid extraterritorial arrest power	Graw was deputized by Camden County in 2013 and thus had deputy-sheriff authority to act outside city limits	Court did not resolve merits; vacated COA, remanded for trial court to clarify whether it found deputization was limited (if factual, that finding governs)
Whether the 2013 deputization conferred ongoing, general deputy authority in 2020	Deputization (if limited to ride-alongs or particular cases) did not confer ongoing authority	Testimony that she was deputized in 2013 was sufficient to prove she was acting as a deputy	Court identified scope/duration as a factual question; remanded for clarification rather than deciding validity/duration of a general deputization
Standard of review for deputization scope (factual vs. legal)	N/A (argues facts show insufficient authority)	N/A (argues testimony supports authority)	Trial-court factual findings receive deference; legal conclusions reviewed de novo — court directed clarification to determine which standard applies
Whether suppression is proper remedy for extraterritorial arrest	Raised by amici that suppression may be inappropriate	State conceded the issue was not preserved below	Court declined to address the suppression-remedy question as it was not raised below

Jones v. Rountree, 96 Ga. 230 (deputy sheriffs generally have the same powers as the sheriff)
Veit v. State, 182 Ga. App. 753 (deputy sheriff is agent of sheriff and may exercise sheriff's powers in proper discharge of duties)
Fine v. Dade County, 198 Ga. 655 (public officer presumed to have properly performed official duties until contrary appears)
Nelson v. State, 312 Ga. 375 (standards of review for trial-court fact findings and legal conclusions on suppression)
State v. Middleton, 363 Ga. App. 851 (COA decision reversing suppression; addressed sufficiency of deputization evidence)
Pfeiffer v. Georgia Dept. of Transportation, 275 Ga. 827 (issues not raised below generally will not be considered on appeal)