The STATE v. EDWARDS Et Al.
332 Ga. App. 342
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Edw ards and McMillain were indicted for trafficking in marijuana (possession of >10 pounds).
- Edwards moved to suppress evidence from his residence due to unlawful initial entry and later search; McMillain joined.
- Officers conducted a knock-and-talk at the door without probable cause or exigent circumstances, then entered and secured Edwards after smelling marijuana.
- An undercover affidavit relied on the odor and knock-and-talk facts to obtain a search warrant about 45 minutes after entry; officers then re-entered and seized marijuana.
- Trial court suppressed evidence from the warrant but allowed evidence obtained from the initial entry to be considered; appellate review addressed the legality of the initial entry and the sufficiency of probable cause for the warrant.
- On appeal, the court affirmed the suppression of pre-warrant entry evidence and reversed the suppression of evidence obtained under the warrant, applying a proper probable cause standard for odor-based detection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is odor of marijuana alone sufficient for probable cause? | Edwards—odor alone cannot justify a warrant. | State—od or can be sole basis if officer trained to recognize it. | Yes; odor can support probable cause when the affiant is qualified. |
| Was the search warrant valid based on the affidavit? | Affidavit insufficient to establish probable cause. | Affidavit supported probable cause due to odor. | Warrant valid; suppression reversed for warrant-based evidence. |
| Should evidence from the initial illegal entry be suppressed? | Evidence tainted by illegal entry should be suppressed. | Evidence from the entry was not subject to the warrant taint. | Evidence from the initial entry is suppressed, but warrant-based evidence is not. |
Key Cases Cited
- Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (U.S. 1984) (warrant requirement and exigent circumstances framework for entry)
- State v. Able, 321 Ga. App. 632 (Ga. App. 2013) (knock-and-talk with no probable cause or exigency)
- Threatt v. State, 240 Ga. App. 592 (Ga. App. 1999) (exigency and probable cause standards for entry)
- Teal v. State, 282 Ga. 319 (Ga. 2007) (fruit of the poisonous tree and independent-taint considerations)
- Colvard, 296 Ga. 381 (Ga. 2015) (taint analysis for evidence obtained via illegal entry)
- Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (U.S. 1948) (odor-based probable cause lineage)