324 Ga. App. 670
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Shaw was indicted on one count of felony possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and one count of misdemeanor possession of drug related objects.
- Police stopped Shaw on April 19, 2012 because he had an outstanding warrant; Shaw and his passenger were arrested and placed in patrol cars.
- David searched Shaw’s vehicle incident to the arrests and recovered marijuana and scales from the glove box.
- The items were later listed on a department inventory form, but there is no clear evidence of impoundment or inventory for Shaw’s protection.
- The trial court denied suppression based on the inevitable discovery rule, and the case proceeded to appeal.
- On appeal, the court held the impoundment and inventory were not reasonably necessary and the inevitable discovery rule did not apply, reversing the suppression denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether impoundment and inventory search were reasonably necessary | Shaw argues impoundment was unnecessary | State argues impoundment was necessary for safety and property protection | Impoundment not reasonably necessary; suppression reversed |
| Whether the vehicle search incident to arrest was valid | Shaw contends the search was unlawful as an arm's reach search | State contends search was permissible under policy | Search invalid under Gant/Bellton framework; inadmissible |
| Whether the inevitable discovery rule applies | Shaw invokes inevitable discovery to admit evidence | State argues rule applies despite improper impoundment | Inevitable discovery not applicable; suppression affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Canino v. State, 314 Ga. App. 633-634 (2012) (guides suppression review; credibility and findings deferential to trial court)
- Humphreys v. State, 287 Ga. 63 (2010) (inventory search reasonable when vehicle connected to arrest and hazards exist)
- Teal v. State, 282 Ga. 319 (2007) (inevitable discovery rule considerations)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits vehicle searches after arrestee secured; not allowed for interior access)
- Strohbert v. State, 165 Ga. App. 515 (1983) (impoundment/search standards; context of vehicle connected to arrest)
- State v. Lowe, 224 Ga. App. 228 (1997) (impoundment search validity when not connected to arrest or hazards)
- Carlisle v. State, 278 Ga. App. 528 (2006) (short-notice towing paradigms for reasonable impoundment time)
- Gooden v. State, 196 Ga. App. 295 (1990) (timing of impoundment as reasonable depending on availability of vehicle owners)