State v. Holmes
326 Ga. App. 451
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- In the early morning after Halloween, deputies responded to a 911 report of people vandalizing a neighborhood baseball field and reckless driving on an adjacent road.
- Deputy Carter stopped a Honda with many intoxicated occupants; a second car stopped nearby. Deputy Patterson later arrived after briefly checking the baseball field and found no damage.
- Deputy Patterson activated his lights and stopped Holmes’s approaching Acura; he smelled alcohol and later arrested Holmes for DUI and underage possession after a BAC of 0.142.
- At the suppression hearing, Patterson testified he stopped Holmes because Holmes was on the same road at that hour, was driving fast, and straddled the yellow line; the written report, however, referenced only the 911 call and did not mention speed or lane violations.
- The trial court found Patterson’s testimony about speed/lane violations not credible and granted Holmes’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from the stop.
- The State appealed, arguing the stop was supported by articulable suspicion; the appellate court affirmed the suppression, deferring to the trial court’s credibility findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deputy had articulable suspicion to justify investigatory stop | The stop was justified by the dispatch about vandalism/reckless driving, the late-hour location, and Patterson’s observations of speed and lane straddling | No particularized suspicion; deputy’s report did not record traffic violations and the trial court found those observations not credible | Stop lacked articulable suspicion; suppression affirmed |
| Whether ongoing investigation of other stopped cars justified stopping every passing car | The presence of multiple intoxicated persons and ongoing investigation supported stopping additional vehicles in the area | Mere driving on a public road at night, without particularized suspicious conduct, does not authorize a stop | Ongoing investigation of others did not authorize stopping every vehicle absent individualized suspicion |
| Standard of review for suppression hearing credibility findings | Appellant argued evidence supports the stop on the facts | Trial court as factfinder resolves credibility; appellate court must defer unless clearly erroneous | Appellate court deferred to trial court’s credibility findings and accepted its factual determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State, 293 Ga. 787 (2013) (appellate deference to trial court findings on suppression)
- Miller v. State, 288 Ga. 286 (2010) (standards for reviewing suppression rulings)
- Jones v. State, 291 Ga. 35 (2012) (de novo review when evidence uncontroverted)
- Ciak v. State, 278 Ga. 27 (2004) (trial court may accept or reject any portion of testimony)
- Clay v. State, 290 Ga. 822 (2012) (limited deference to videotape-based factual findings not dependent on witness credibility)
- Hughes v. State, 269 Ga. 258 (1998) (driving at night in itself does not justify investigatory stop)