Daniel v. State
404 S.E.2d 466
Ga. Ct. App.
1991
Check Treatment

DANIEL v. THE STATE.

A90A1897

Court of Appeals of Georgia

MARCH 15, 1991

187 Ga. App. 180 | 404 SE2d 466

POPE, Judge.

оf, and activity surrounding, the cocaine, and even approval of it which does not amount to encouragement, is not sufficient.

, applies this and other principles relevant to this сase. See also
.

DECIDED MARCH 15, 1991.

Ronnie K. Batchelor, for appellants.

Phyllis Miller, Solicitor, for appellee.

POPE, Judge.

Defendant Juanza D. Daniel entered a guilty plea to the offense of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon but reserved his right to appeal frоm the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm.

The transcript from the motion to suppress hearing shows the following: Deputy Mike Huntzinger of the Clarke County Police Department stopped defendant for travelling at an excessive rate of speed. He requested defendant‘s driver‘s license and proof of insurance. Defendant told the officer his license had expirеd or been suspended but retrieved his proof of insurance from inside his car. After a computer check revealed that defendant‘s license had been suspended for points, Huntzinger placed defendant under arrest for driving with a suspended license, handcuffed him and placed him in the back of his patrol car. Huntzinger then searched defendant‘s vehicle and discoverеd a .38 caliber revolver “stuffed down” between the front seat and the console. The officer testified that the search was conducted incident to defendant‘s arrest, and not for the purpose of inventorying the contents of the automobile (which was impounded) or for the purpose of discovering evidence of the crime for which defendant had been plaсed under arrest (driving with a suspended license).

Relying on

, the trial court denied defendant‘s motion to suppress. On appeal defendant argues that, pretermitting the validity of the search under federal law, the search was illegal under state law because it was not authorized by OCGA § 17-5-1.1

“In

, [supra] the United States Supreme Court held that ‘when a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest оf the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.’
. ‘In (
, this court) found that the teaching of
was “that a search of the passenger compartment of an automobile recently occupied by an arrestee is a valid search incident to an arrest, even if the arrestеe had no ‘immediate control’ of the area at the time the search was conducted. The decisive factor is whether the arrestee was, at the time of his arrest, a ‘recent occupant’ of the automobile, not whether the automobile and its contents were in his immediate control at the time of the search. . . .“‘”
, cert. denied,
.

In

the challenged search, like the search in this case, occurred after defendant had been arrested for a traffic ‍‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‍violation (driving without a license) and placed in the back of the squad car. In upholding the search in
, this court, although not specifically addressing the applicability of OCGA § 17-5-1, noted that while the search might not be upheld on the pretext of discovering fruits or instrumentalities of the crime for which the defendant was arrested, OCGA § 17-5-1 (a) (3), since in the case of traffic violations there are no fruits or instrumentalities to be discovered, “a search of . . . the area within such person‘s immediate presence may be conducted for other purposes [enumerated in OCGA § 17-5-1], such as protecting the officer from attack [or preventing the arrestee from escaping]. OCGA § 17-5-1 (a) (1) [& (2)].”
. See also
in which this court, relying on
, rejected defendant‘s claim that the search “of his vehicle [was] not justified as [a search] incident to a lawful arrest under OCGA § 17-5-1.” (Emphasis supplied.)
.

We also reject defendant‘s implicit contention that the arresting оfficer make two inquiries, one under state and one under federal law, before determining whether to proceed with the contemporaneous search of an automobile following the arrest of its occupant. Such a procedure would, in effect, completely frustrate the stated purpose of the Supreme Court “to establish . . . a single familiar standard [fоr the category of cases where the arrestee is a recent occupant of the car but no longer has access to it or its contents] to guide police officеrs, who have only limited time and expertise to reflect on and balance the social and individual interests involved in the specific circumstances they may confront. (Cit.)

, supra.”
. In so holding we find instructive the holding in
, in which our Supremе Court was confronted with a similar issue involving probable cause to arrest under federal and state law. In that case the court recognized that “dual inquiries, ‍‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‍one under federal law and оne under state law, serve no useful purpose and result in complicating the law in an area which needs to be readily understood by law enforcement officers.”
. Thus, for purposes оf searching a vehicle contemporaneously with the lawful arrest of an individual, “we find the state rule to be the same as the federal rule. [Such a search], legal under federal law, [is] lеgal under state law. Thus, defendant‘s motion to suppress the evidence was properly denied.”

Judgment affirmed. Andrews, J., concurs. Beasley, J., concurs specially.

BEASLEY, Judge, concurring specially.

1. It should be noted that the analysis undertaken in this case and in the cases cited did not examine the reaches of the Georgia Constitution. It may not be coextensive with the Georgia statute or with the Federal Constitution‘s provision regarding sеarch and seizure as construed by the United States Supreme Court from time to time.

The motion to suppress asserted that the weapon was obtained “in violation of the accused‘s rights undеr Article 1, Sec 1, Para. 13 of the Georgia Constitution [1983] and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.” However, at the hearing, the defendant stood on the limitations of the statute authorizing search pursuant to lawful arrest in certain circumstances, OCGA § 17-5-1, and on the Federal Constitution and recent Georgia cases applying federal constitutional principles, especially as articulated in

. The Georgia Bill of Rights provisiоn was not pursued. The trial court decided the motion ‍‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‍on the federal ground without any express ruling on the state statutory ground.

On appeal defendant argues that the Georgia statute is morе restrictive than is the Fourth Amendment, as construed by the United States Supreme Court particularly in

, and that the motion should have been granted on this state-law-based ground. He cites
which acknowledged that stаte statute and Federal Constitution may set different standards. Although it also pointed out that state constitutional guarantees are not necessarily the same as the federal, that indeрendent ground was abandoned in this case as well as in
I do not suggest that the thirteenth paragraph of the Constitution of Georgia is more or less restrictive of police or more or less protective of citizens than is the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Cf.
. I suggest only that it was not explored аs a basis for the motion, and thus we do not consider it.

2. Insofar as

, addresses the federal constitutional claim, it is not relevant to the issue before us. A federal claim is not raised. Whether the search viоlated the state statute is the question.
rejects
2 and
, as controlling on the state statute issue. It construes the state statute ‍‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‍in light of the federal construction of the Federal Constitution in
and implicitly finds no violation of the statute.

Another case cited by the majority,

, does the same thing. In determining that OCGA § 17-5-1 was not violated, thе court measured the search by the federal standard of
.

I do not discern in appellant‘s brief, or in his argument in the lower court for that matter, any contention or suggestion that the arresting officer make two inquiries or attempt to apply two separate standards before searching. Appellant merely urges, correctly, that the officer must abide by whatever is the mоst restrictive law applicable to his activities. If the state statute or the State Constitution is more demanding than the Federal Constitution, then he is bound by the former and need not be concerned with the latter because it is automatically subsumed. The thrust of appellant‘s argument is that even if

, that is, the United States Supreme Court interpretation of the Fourth Amendment in automobile searches, is satisfied, Georgia law must also be satisfied. The Supreme Court in
did not establish a “single standard” for both state and federal law, but rather a single federal constitutional standard which is applicablе in all states insofar as the Federal Constitution is concerned. The “disarray” it sought to resolve was federal constitutional disarray which had emerged from court decisions around the country. It did not, and does not, and cannot, prohibit state laws, by state legislative enactments or state common law development, from protecting individual rights more stringently. That is the nature of fedеralism. The policeman need only learn and apply one standard, the highest standard compelled by our dual system of laws.

Since our Court has concluded that compliance with

principles meets the strictures of OCGA § 17-5-1, I am constrained to concur in the affirmance of the dеnial of appellant‘s motion to suppress the evidence seized in the search. The Supreme Court of Georgia, in
, without analyzing the strictures of OCGA § 17-5-1,3 and dwelling briefly only on the arrest statute and finding it “to be the same as the federal rule,” summarily held that “[a]n arrest and search, legal under federal law, are legal under state law.”

Notes

1
OCGA § 17-5-1 (a) allows a search incident to a lawful arrest for the following purposes: “(1) Protecting the officer from attack; (2) Preventing the person from escaping; (3) Discovering or seizing the fruits of the crime for which the ‍‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‍person has been arrested; or (4) Discovering or seizing any instruments, articles, or things which are being used or which may have been used in the commission of the crime for which the person has been arrested.”
2
Overruled on other grounds sub nom.
.
3
It is not evident whether the appellant invoked OCGA § 17-5-1 expressly.