Defendant appeals his convictions of possession of a controlled substance, OCGA § 16-13-30, and theft by taking a motor vehicle, OCGA § 16-8-2. On appeal he enumerates as error the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress and further contends that the evi *717 dence was insufficient to sustain his conviction of possession of marijuana. With regard to the theft by taking conviction, which is not connected, he urges error in the admission of certain testimony referring to what he contends was similar transaction evidence.
1. (a) Defendant’s motion to suppress was first heard in November 1987 and granted. A few days later, the State filed a motion for rehearing, to present further evidence. A hearing was held, the original order was vacated, and the motion to suppress was denied.
At trial, the following evidence was introduced. At 1:00 a.m. on July 3, 1987, a deputy sheriff stopped defendant’s vehicle after it twice left the road. A license check revealed defendant was driving with a suspended license and he was arrested. When defendant refused a DUI test after being administered a field test, the arrest was compounded for driving under the influence. Defendant advised the deputy that the vehicle was rented. The officer, who was unable to remove the vehicle from its location, decided that it was unsafe to leave it there because it would cause a road hazard the next morning since it would be blocking the driveway of a bank.
Defendant asked if someone could come get the vehicle but was unable to give the deputy a definite time when this could be accomplished, so the officer called for a wrecker. The deputy then began an inventory search of the vehicle and was aided by two police officers who arrived as back-ups. The officers found marijuana in a cooler in the back seat of the car and in a drink holder in the front seat and found marijuana cigarette butts in the ashtray.
The original grant of the motion to suppress was predicated upon the failure to introduce evidence of an inventory policy on the part of the sheriff’s department. The State moved for a rehearing to permit the introduction of evidence which would establish that such a policy was in existence at the time of the search. Because no transcript of the hearing is provided the record is silent as to what transpired. Defendant now argues that because the arresting officer did not know of such policy the fact that such policy was in existence would not validate the search.
Reconsideration of a ruling on a motion to suppress is permissible.
Chastain v. State,
Whether there was a department inventory policy, and whether the officer knew it, if there was one, is not determinative of the issue although the existence or nonexistence of a policy would be relevant. “[IJnventory searches have been upheld because they serve three legitimate interests: (1) protection of the property while in custody; (2) protection of the police from potential dangers; and (3) protection of the police against claims of lost or stolen property.”
Strobhert v.
*718
State,
“ ‘[A] police seizure and inventory is not dependent for its validity upon the absolute necessity for the police to take charge of property to preserve it. They are permitted to take charge of property under broader circumstances than that.’
Mooney v. State,
The circumstances here demonstrate the action of the officers in impounding and inventorying the vehicle was reasonable when measured against the Fourth Amendment’s interest in protecting the individual’s right to privacy. See
Gooden v. State,
(b) Defendant contends that the evidence did not support the verdict because of the principle that mere presence in the vicinity of contraband, without more, does not establish possession. See
Ridgeway v. State,
There was no evidence that anyone else had equal access to the car and the items were found in places in close proximity to and within the control of the driver.
Mendez v. State,
2. The State sought to introduce evidence about a shotgun found in the stolen vehicle when defendant was arrested for theft of the ve *719 hide. (This was not the vehicle which defendant was driving on an occasion two years earlier, in which the marijuana was found.) Defendant objected on the ground that he was not notified ten days before trial as required by USCR 31.1 and 31.3 regarding evidence of a similar transaction. The court agreed but ruled that limited evidence would be permitted, as a circumstance of the arrest, about finding the shotgun in the stolen vehicle and that it was previously in the possession of a third party about a day and a half before the arrest. The court instructed the State to restrict its proof as to the circumstances and not to show that the weapon was stolen. 1
During direct examination of the party formerly in possession of the shotgun, the prosecuting attorney asked: “when was the gun no longer in your possession?” The witness responded: “The first time I noticed it was missing was on the morning of October the 25th.” The court denied defendant’s motion to strike the testimony that the gun was “missing,” which motion presumedly was made on the same ground raised earlier, that he had not been notified in advance pursuant to USCR 31.1 and 31.3. Later, defendant moved for mistrial on the ground that the testimony exceeded the “parameters” of the trial court’s directions. This motion was denied because the court did not find a violation of its order.
On appeal defendant asserts that the testimony put his character in evidence. This basis was not raised in the lower court,
Clark v. State,
The question posed complied with the court’s instructions. Despite the choice of the word “missing,” the response also came within the guidelines imposed by the court’s ruling. “Missing” is the substantial equivalent of when the shotgun was no longer there. Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary defines “missing” as “absent from the place where it was expected to be found; lost; wanting; not present when called or looked for.” The failure to strike the testimony or grant a mistrial was not error on the ground raised and preserved.
Judgments affirmed.
Notes
Appellant was convicted of the burglary in which the weapon was taken.
Martin v. State,