Nunnally v. State
310 Ga. App. 183
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Officer observed Nunnally fail to signal on two occasions as required by law;
- Traffic stop occurred and a backup K-9 unit was dispatched for safety;
- K-9 alerted to narcotics inside Nunnally’s vehicle after being walked around it;
- Nunnally was detained, then searched;
- Marijuana was found on the person and on the driver’s floorboard;
- Trial court denied suppression and convicted Nunnally of the marijuana offense; the traffic offense conviction was challenged on sufficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for turn-signal violation | Nunnally contends officer credibility issues; he alleges signaling; | State argues jury could reasonably credit officer’s testimony; | Traffic conviction upheld on sufficiency of evidence. |
| Suppression of marijuana as fruit of illegal seizure | Detention extended beyond the traffic stop without justification; | Dog sniff during stop was permissible under Terry; | Marijuana evidence suppressed; convict for marijuana reversed. |
| Validity of drug-dog sniff during a valid traffic stop | Prolonged detention lacked reasonable suspicion; | Dog sniff justified by ongoing traffic investigation; | Detention not properly justified; dog sniff unlawful. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for proving sufficiency of evidence)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (temporary traffic stops treated as seizures; Terry framework)
- Salmeron v. State, 280 Ga. 735 (Ga. 2006) (permissible during valid traffic stop for dog sniff; purpose of stop controls)
- Williams v. State, 264 Ga. App. 199 (Ga. App. 2003) (detention duration and drug-search consent depend on diligent pursuit of traffic investigation)
- Boyd v. State, 300 Ga. App. 455 (Ga. App. 2009) (brief detention with independent basis to suspect other wrongdoing)
- Caballes v. Illinois, 543 U.S. 405 (U.S. 2005) (dog sniff during lawful stop does not violate Fourth Amendment when no additional intrusion)
