State v. Thackston
289 Ga. 412
Ga.2011Background
- Thackston, on probation in Douglas County, was charged in Paulding County with drug offenses after a March 2007 traffic stop revealed meth.
- During execution of a Douglas County probation warrant in October 2007, officers saw meth on a table and obtained a search warrant.
- A subsequent search yielded additional meth and drug paraphernalia; suppression motions were filed in the Paulding case.
- The Paulding charges were nolle prossed after the suppression ruling; Thackston then sought suppression in the Douglas County probation revocation proceeding and raised a plea in bar based on collateral estoppel.
- The probation court denied suppression and the plea in bar, and revoked Thackston’s probation; the Court of Appeals reversed on collateral estoppel but did not address the exclusionary rule in probation revocation.
- The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the exclusionary rule applies in probation revocation proceedings and to resolve related statutory and procedural issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the exclusionary rule apply in probation revocation proceedings? | Thackston argues rule should apply to prevent using illegally seized evidence. | State contends rule does not extend to probation revocation. | No; exclusionary rule does not apply to probation revocation. |
| Does OCGA § 17-5-30 govern admission of illegally seized evidence in probation revocation? | Statute should bar admission of illegally seized evidence in revocation. | Probation revocation is not a trial, so statute does not apply. | Statute does not apply; probation revocation is not a trial. |
| May an appellee raise on appeal an issue not raised in the trial court, despite contrary precedent? | Appellee should be barred from raising new issues on appeal. | Existing rule requires trial-stage raising; no expansion on appeal. | Disapproved; appellee may raise arguments on appeal even if not raised in trial court. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974) (balancing deterrence vs. truth-seeking in extending exclusionary rule contexts)
- Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976) (exclusionary rule not universally applicable beyond criminal trials)
- Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (1998) (limits deterrence-based application of exclusionary rule in probation contexts)
- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987) (balancing test for extending exclusionary rule to other contexts)
- United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (1976) (considerations of deterrence and truth-seeking in evidence rules)
- United States v. Winsett, 518 F.2d 51 (9th Cir.1975) (probation context; exclusionary rule not extended to revocation hearings)
- Amiss v. State, 135 Ga.App. 784 (1975) (early Georgia rule extending suppression in probation revocation (overruled))