Weems v. State
318 Ga. App. 749
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- Officer stopped Weems for following too closely on the interstate; speed was 72 mph in a 70 mph zone.
- After stopping, the officer wrote a courtesy warning and spoke with Weems and co-defendant Walters near the patrol car.
- The officer later decided to run licenses and questioned both drivers while stating Weems would receive a warning only.
- At about nine minutes into the stop, the officer asked to search the car; he questioned Walters about narcotics, cash, and weapons before proceeding.
- The officer conducted a free air search with a K-9, and a purse containing $18,000 cash and crack cocaine was recovered from the car.
- Weems moved to suppress; the trial court denied, then granted immediate review; appellate court reversed, deeming the detention illegal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was unlawfully extended beyond the traffic violation | Weems | Weems | detention unlawfully extended; reversal and suppression granted |
| Whether asking about narcotics/currency and the car search exceeded permissible scope | Weems | Weems | impermissible escalation without articulable suspicion; unlawful detention sustained |
| Whether the K-9 free air search was tainted by pre-search actions (cash placement) | Weems | Weems | tainted search; suppression required |
| Whether license check request without contact after completion affected legality | Weems | Weems | extension without reasonable suspicion invalid |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. State, 280 Ga.App. 716 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006) (de novo review and favorable construction for suppression rulings)
- St. Fleur v. State, 296 Ga.App. 849 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) (routine checks during a traffic stop are permissible if not prolonging detention)
- Faulkner v. State, 256 Ga.App. 129 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (once traffic-stop tasks are complete, additional questioning requires articulable suspicion)
- Migliore v. State, 240 Ga.App. 783 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999) (nervousness or inconsistent statements alone do not establish reasonable suspicion)
- Almond v. State, 242 Ga.App. 650 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000) (questions during a stop must not detain beyond necessary; focus on scope of stop)
- State v. Mauerberger, 270 Ga. App. 794 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) (asking questions unrelated to the stop requires consent or suspicion)
- Gonzales v. State, 255 Ga.App. 149 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (after routine stop, lawfulness depends on articulable suspicion for further inquiry)