A jury convicted
In reviewing a trial court’s decision on a motion to suppress, we construe the evidence most favorably to uphold the findings and judgment, and the trial court’s findings on disputed facts and credibility of the witnesses are adopted unless they are clearly erroneous. Further, because the trial court is the trier of fact, its findings are analogous to a jury verdict and will not be disturbed if any evidence supports them. However, when evidence is uncon-troverted and no question of witness credibility is presented, the trial court’s application of the law to undisputed facts is subject to de novo appellate review.
(Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Hammont v. State,
Viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, the record shows that at around midnight on February 4, 2009, an officer with the City of Woodstock Police Department was conducting speed enforcement along Interstate 92 in Cherokee County. Using a laser speed detection device, the officer measured the speed of the vehicle driven by Campbell at 63 miles per hour. The posted speed limit was 45 miles per hour.
The officer initiated a traffic stop of Campbell’s vehicle for speeding. When the officer subsequently approached Campbell’s vehicle, he smelled what he believed in light of his training and experience was the “faint odor of burnt marijuana” emanating from inside the vehicle. The officer requested that Campbell and the front seat passenger produce
The officer returned to his patrol car and radioed for assistance in light of his observations and conversation with Campbell. As the officer ran a check on Campbell and his passenger’s licenses, he noticed that Campbell appeared to be moving around in his vehicle as if he was “either moving something or try[ing] to conceal something in the back seat.” A second officer arrived at the scene as backup, and he likewise observed that Campbell was moving around in his seat in a suspicious manner.
At that point, the first officer returned to the vehicle and directed Campbell to step outside onto the road, where the officer conducted a pat-down search for weapons. Campbell’s eyes were bloodshot, but he denied having drunk any alcohol. The officer also could smell the odor of marijuana on Campbell’s person, and he asked Campbell how much marijuana he had smoked. Campbell admitted that he had smoked part of a “blunt” about an hour before.
The first officer then administered a series of field sobriety tests, including the walk-and-turn test, the one-leg-stand test, and the eye convergence test.
After administering the field sobriety tests, the first officer arrested Campbell for DUI - less safe. According to the officer, he arrested Campbell based upon the totality of the circumstances, including that he was speeding, admitted to smoking marijuana, had the smell of marijuana on his person, and exhibited multiple clues of impairment during several of the field sobriety tests.
After being placed under arrest, a substance that later tested positive as marijuana and weighing 0.3 grams was seized from Campbell’s right shoe. Campbell also was read the implied consent notice and agreed to take a State-administered blood test. The blood sample thereafter taken from Campbell at the hospital tested positive for THC metabolite, which was indicative of marijuana use.
Because Campbell filed this appeal pro se, we will construe his brief liberally. See Beasley v. State,
In determining whether sufficient probable cause existed, “[t]he material inquiry is whether the facts within the [officer’s] knowledge at the time of the arrest constituted reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to authorize a prudent person to believe that [Campbell] had committed that offense.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Pinch v. State,
Here, Campbell was observed speeding, admitted to smoking marijuana, had the
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
Campbell also claims that the trial court lacked subject matter and personal jurisdiction over him and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise these jurisdictional issues. These claims are without merit.
The first officer also administered the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and the Romberg test, but Campbell did not exhibit any clues of impairment on those tests. The officer noted that based upon his training and experience, a person who has smoked marijuana will not exhibit any clues of impairment on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test unless the marijuana is “laced” with another substance such as PCE
Campbell’s request for an extension of time to file an amended brief is hereby denied. We likewise deny the State’s motion to dismiss this appeal.