King v. StateKing v. State
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Cooper
James Wilbur King was indicted for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of the Georgia Controlled Substаnces Act. Following the denial of his motion to suppress, he entered a guilty plea to the charge, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.
The transcript from the hearing on thе motion to suppress reveals that on January 20, 1992, a search warrant was issued for appellant’s residence. Within 60 days prior to the issuance of the search warrant, Officer Richard Royal, an officеr with the Bibb County Drug Task Force, received information from a reliable confidential informant. The informant аdvised Officer Royal that appellant, Kennedy King, appellant’s brother, Joey Cohen and Jamie Cоhen, were involved in a scheme to transport marijuana from Houston, Texas to Macon, Georgia. The informant stated that usually Kennedy King would drive or fly to Houston and purchase the marijuana, and Joey Cohen would drive to Houston, pick up the marijuana from Kennedy King and drive it back to Macon, where he would give it to appellant and Jamie Cohen to be distributed. On Friday, January 17, 1992, the informant told Officer Royal that Kеnnedy King told him that he was on his way to Atlanta to catch a plane to Houston. The informant advised Officеr Royal that the marijuana was expected to be back in Macon by Tuesday, January 21, 1992. On Saturday, Januаry 18, 1992, the informant told Officer Royal that he had seen appellant and Jamie Cohen driving a maroon Buiсk. On that same night Officer Royal observed a maroon Buick outside Joey Cohen’s house and saw Joey Cоhen leave and place a tote bag in the car.
Officer Royal also received informаtion from three other reliable confidential informants which corroborated the information provided by the first informant. The second confidential informant stated that appellant told him he was going to Tеxas to pick up some marijuana and asked if he wanted to purchase some marijuana. The third сonfidential informant told Officer Royal that Jamie Cohen was distributing marijuana in the Macon area and that the marijuana was supplied by appellant. A fourth confidential informant stated that Jamie Cohen wаs dealing in large quantities of marijuana which was being brought in from Texas. Officer Royal discovered that on Sunday, January 19, 1992, Kennedy King had been stopped in Atlanta deboarding a plane from Houston and that he was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. As a result of all the information rеceived by the four informants and his independent investigation, Officer Royal prepared an affidavit аnd obtained a search warrant for appellant’s residence.
*829Upon receipt of the search warrant, Officer Royal, with the assistance of other officеrs, began surveillance of appellant’s residence. At approximately 5:00 a.m. on January 20, 1992, a mаroon Buick driven by a white male arrived at appellant’s residence. The officers could not idеntify the driver from their positions but saw the driver get out of the car and go into the house. Approximately 15 minutes later, the driver came out of the house and left in the maroon Buick. The Buick was stopped by the оfficers approximately two miles from the house. The officers discovered that appellаnt was the driver of the car, and a search of the car revealed 41.75 pounds of marijuana.
Apрellant contends that the search of his car was not authorized by the search warrant, which permitted a search for “records ... or other such documents to substantiate the conspiracy to distribute mаrijuana between Houston, Texas and Macon, Georgia. ...” However, the real issue is whether the offiсer had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the car. “An automobilе search may be conducted without a warrant provided it is based on facts that would justify the issuance of a warrant. [Cit.] The trial court’s decision on fact questions and credibility of witnesses at a suppression hearing must be accepted unless clearly erroneous; and his ruling will be upheld wherever there is evidence to support it. [Cit.]” Love v. State, 173 Ga. App. 85, 86 (1) (325 SE2d 449) (1984). “Generally, probable cause is determined by the ‘totality of the circumstances’ surrounding (1) the basis of the informant’s knowledge and (2) the informant’s veracity or reliability. [Cit.]” McKinney v. State, 184 Ga. App. 607, 608-609 (1) (362 SE2d 65) (1987). The information was recеived from a reliable informant within 30 hours of the subsequent search of the appellant’s car. The informаtion detailed a plan whereby Kennedy King would fly to Houston to purchase marijuana, and then Joey Cohen would drive the marijuana back to Macon where it would be distributed by appellant. The policе received corroborating information from the other three informants, and their independent investigаtion also verified the information. We find that there was sufficient indicia of probable cause to authorize a warrantless search of appellant’s car. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress. Williams v. State, 173 Ga. App. 207 (1) (325 SE2d 783) (1984).
Judgment affirmed.
Beasley, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.