State v. Able
321 Ga. App. 632
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Anonymous tip prompted four officers to approach Able’s Cartersville apartment for a knock-and-talk investigation.
- Able opened the door slightly; odor of marijuana was detected after the door opened and Able invited entry.
- Inside, officers identified four occupants and gathered IDs; disclosure of marijuana and related paraphernalia followed immediately.
- All four occupants were arrested and searched; Selph possessed marijuana and digital scales.
- Able and Selph were indicted for possession of marijuana; they moved to suppress evidence as fourteenth amendment Fourth Amendment violation.
- Trial court granted suppression without written findings and expressed strong personal opposition to knock-and-talk procedures; on appeal the State challenged this basis as improper; the court vacated and remanded for reconsideration focusing on whether Able consented to entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by suppressing evidence based on dislike of knock-and-talk. | Able, Selph | State | Yes; suppression based on dislike was improper. |
| Whether Able consent to entry was properly assessed by the trial court. | Able | Selph | Remand to evaluate voluntary consent. |
| Whether knock-and-talk procedures are constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. | Able | State | Knock-and-talk is constitutional; focus on consent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (U.S. Supreme Court 2013) (recognizes knock-and-talk contextual legality)
- Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (U.S. Supreme Court 2011) (knock on door without warrant is not per se unlawful)
- Walker v. State, 314 Ga. App. 67 (Ga. App. 2012) (first-tier encounter permissible without suspicions)
- Galindo-Eriza v. State, 306 Ga. App. 19 (Ga. App. 2010) (knock-and-talk at residence constitutes permissible encounter)
- State v. Ealum, 283 Ga. App. 799 (Ga. App. 2007) (lawful entry/encounter when limited to initial contact)
- Pickens v. State, 225 Ga. App. 792 (Ga. App. 1997) (no articulable suspicion required to knock and ask for ID in hotel context)
- Brown v. State, 261 Ga. App. 351 (Ga. App. 2003) (consent-based searches depend on totality of circumstances)
- Pando v. State, 284 Ga. App. 70 (Ga. App. 2007) (upholding suppression when consent to enter is not shown)
- Pollard v. State, 265 Ga. App. 749 (Ga. App. 2004) (consent question of fact for trial court)
- Hendry v. Hendry, 292 Ga. 1 (Ga. 2012) (statutory interpretation guiding plain meaning approach)