Ryan Brandt and William Kollie were tried by a Gwinnett County jury and convicted of crimes arising from a home invasion and two restaurant robberies. They previously appealed their convictions, and as to Brandt, we vacated the denial of his motion to suppress and remanded for reconsideration of that motion in light of
Arizona v. Gant,
When we review the denial of a motion to suppress, we owe no deference to the way in which the court below resolved questions of
*344
law,
Barrett v. State,
The second officer stopped the truck, and the first officer arrived a few moments later at the scene of the stop. As the second officer approached the truck on foot and obtained the license of Kollie, the driver, the officers began to overhear additional radio dispatches about the armed robbery of the restaurant. According to these dispatches, two black men, one wearing a white shirt and black jeans, the other wearing a light-colored shirt and a red bandana on his head, had robbed the restaurant and were believed to be driving a black, Harley-Davidson edition, Ford pickup truck. The officers realized that the truck they had stopped and its occupants matched exactly the descriptions contained in the radio dispatches, and at first, they decided to await the arrival of additional officers before doing anything else. But before anyone else arrived, the officers observed Brandt moving frantically about the cab of the truck, reaching repeatedly toward the center console and looking over his shoulder at the officers.
*345 To keep the scene safe, the officers decided at that point to remove the occupants from the truck and secure them. With their weapons drawn, the officers instructed Kollie to exit the truck, and when he did so, the officers handcuffed him and put him in the back of a patrol car. The officers then directed Brandt to exit the truck, and although he initially failed to comply, he eventually exited the truck as well, was handcuffed, and was put into the second patrol car. After Kollie and Brandt were secured, the first officer approached the truck again to ensure that no one else was inside. As he did so, he saw several liquor bottles in the bed of the truck, the contents of which had spilled into the bed. And when he looked into the cab of the truck, he saw two firearms in plain view, one in the center console, the other on the floor, as well as some money bags. 2 The first officer retrieved and secured the firearms that he saw in plain view, but he did not undertake a more thorough search of the truck at that time. 3 Some Snellville officers arrived soon thereafter, and they impounded the truck and eventually searched the truck thoroughly, discovering additional evidence that implicated Kollie and Brandt in the Applebee’s robbery, another restaurant robbery, and a home invasion. The Snellville officers also brought an eyewitness to the scene of the stop, where the eyewitness identified Kollie and Brandt as the robbers of the Applebee’s restaurant. Before trial, Brandt moved to suppress the evidence recovered from the truck, contending that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him and that the search was not, therefore, incident to a lawful arrest.
Like the court below, we conclude that the search of the truck was a reasonable one. When the Gwinnett County officers first stopped the truck, they had probable cause to believe that the driver had committed a violation of the traffic laws,
4
and for this reason, they had cause to stop it. See
Whren v. United States,
After Kollie and Brandt were secured, the officers were entitled to approach the truck and look into it to see whatever contents might be in plain view. See
Parker v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
In this opinion, we discuss only the evidence that relates to the motion to suppress. Other evidence concerning the crimes of which Brandt and Kollie were convicted is detailed in our previous opinion. See
Kollie,
At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the officer did not say explicitly that he was outside the truck when he saw these things, but he did say that they were in “plain view,” and that generally connotes observation from a place in which an officer is entitled to be. In any event, Brandt does not appear on appeal to dispute that these items were in plain view, and considering our obligation to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment of the court below, we understand the record to show that the officer saw these things from outside the truck. The record would support a finding that the officer was outside the truck, even if it also would permit a different finding. See
Baker v. State,
One of the officers explained that, although he observed the contents of the truck that were in plain view and retrieved the firearms, he did not open any closed compartments or containers in the cab of the truck.
As we noted earlier, both Gwinnett County officers had observed the truck traveling at a high rate of speed, and the second officer saw the driver momentarily lose control of the truck, weaving between lanes in the process.
By that point, the officers knew that the truck occupied by Kollie and Brandt matched the description of the truck involved in the robbery, they knew that Kollie and Brandt matched the description of the robbers, they knew that the robbery had occurred only recently, they knew that the truck was driving fast along the road on which the restaurant was located and away from the restaurant, and they knew that the truck had accelerated when the first officer put his spotlight on it.
By this time, the officers also had observed furtive movements by Brandt inside the cab of the truck and his initial refusal to comply with their lawful instruction to exit the truck.
The only thing of any significance that appears to have happened between the time the first Gwinnett County officer saw the firearms and other items in plain view and the time Kollie and Brandt were identified by an eyewitness as the robbers is that the first officer retrieved the firearms from the truck, and the officer was entitled at least to do that. See
State v. Peterson,
The officers had reason to believe that evidence of the armed robbery might be found in the truck inasmuch as they had observed firearms and other potentially relevant items in plain view, besides the fact, of course, that the truck was stopped driving away from the scene of the robbery and only a short time after the robbery occurred.