Smith v. State
308 Ga. App. 280
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Tommy Smith was convicted after a jury trial of possessing cocaine and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute.
- Smith challenged the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing the no-knock execution of the warrant was improper because the warrant did not contain a no-knock provision.
- The warrant was issued based primarily on information from a confidential source about recent drug sales at Smith's house.
- On January 27, 2006, officers approached from the front and back, announced their presence, and encountered occupants who fled into the house.
- Back-door entry was forced after receiving the occupants' flight into the residence and the officers' corroborating announcements from the front.
- The trial court, and the appellate court, relied on exigent circumstances to justify no-knock entry and upheld the denial of the suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exigent circumstances justify no-knock entry? | Smith | Smith | Yes; exigent circumstances supported no-knock entry |
| Is suppression proper where no-knock is used without a no-knock provision? | Smith | Smith | No error; evidence not suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Poole v. State, 266 Ga.App. 113 (2004) (exigency not shown when occupant only looked out a window)
- Jackson v. State, 280 Ga.App. 716 (2006) (flight into residence supports exigent circumstances)
- Boldin v. State, 282 Ga.App. 492 (2006) (exigent circumstances supported no-knock entry when flight suggested destruction of evidence)
- Wilson v. State, 306 Ga.App. 286 (2010) (standard of review for suppression considering all evidence)