Darrin Lamar Prather appeals his convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana and obstruction of a law enforcement officer. He contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his obstruction conviction. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
The undisputed evidence shows that on December 31, 2004, at approximately 8:05 p.m., DeKalb County police officers T. Pearson and J. Walker both responded to a radio dispatch relaying an anonymous tipster’s report of illegal drug activity at the Glenwood Bowling Lanes.
When Officer Walker arrived at the scene, he surveyed the parking lot and immediately saw the vehicle identified in the call. The vehicle, occupied by Prather, stood out because it was the only vehicle parked in the rear of the lot. Officer Walker parked his police car to the side of Prather’s vehicle while Officer Pearson, who had also arrived on the scene, activated his blue lights and parked his car to the rear of Prather’s vehicle. The two officers exited their cars and approached Prather. Officer Walker could see that Prather, who was in the driver’s seat, was leaning over as if he “was looking in his lap.” Since Officer Walker could not see Prather’s hands and was concerned that he might be armed, he instructed Prather to put his hands on the steering wheel. Instead of complying with the officer’s command, Prather drove away, fleeing from the parking lot. The two officers returned to their patrol cars and attempted to stop Prather.
DeKalb County Aerial Support happened to be in the area and followed Prather’s vehicle by air. During the chase, Prather jumped out of the vehicle and fled on foot. Officers Pearson and Walker secured the vehicle, while another officer apprehended Prather.
1. On appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress “where the evidence is uncontroverted and no question regarding the credibility of witnesses is presented, the trial court’s application of the law to undisputed facts is subject to de novo appellate review.” (Citations omitted.) Vansant v. State,
A dispatcher who reports a crime at a specified location gives police an articulable suspicion to investigate and detain individuals at the scene, particularly where police observations on arriving at the scene corroborate the dispatcher’s report. Even if the dispatcher’s information comes from a citizen or an unidentified informant, the investigatory detention is valid, for patrolling officers are not required to question dispatchers about the source of the information. Further, corroboration only solidifies the existence of an articulable suspicion.
(Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Gomez,
Prather contends the trial court’s ruling was erroneous and the police officers lacked articulable suspicion of criminal activity because the anonymous tipster’s report of drug activity was not sufficiently corroborated by the police. He relies on Alabama v. White,
In White,
We need not decide in this case whether our holding in Gomez comports with the dictates of White. Prather ignored the officers’ commands, fled from the scene and led the officers on a chase in violation of OCGA § 40-6-395 (a), “Fleeing or attempting to elude police officer.”
regardless of the propriety of an officer’s basis for the execution of a Terry traffic investigative stop, attempting to flee from such stop is a separate crime altogether, i.e., fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer. Such offense does not require that an investigative traffic stop be proper, and this Court will not find that the determination of whether there is a “legal” basis for a traffic stop belongs to the driver, thereby giving him the right to ignore blue lights and a siren if he determines he is being stopped illegally.
(Footnotes omitted; emphasis supplied.) Eichelberger v. State,
Moreover, during the course of Prather’s flight, he abandoned the vehicle. “The constitutional protection of the Fourth Amendment does not apply to property which has been abandoned.” (Footnote omitted.) Watson v. State,
2. Prather next contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of misdemeanor obstruction under OCGA § 16-10-24 (a).
Prather argues that the encounter was consensual such that he was entitled to withdraw, or alternatively, that Officer Pearson was not discharging his lawful duty when he attempted to stop him without having articulable suspicion of criminal activity. As stated in Division 1, the officer’s stop of Prather’s vehicle was a second tier encounter. Therefore, the authorization to withdraw from a consensual first tier encounter does not apply here. See Sharp,
In Division 1, we further held that irrespective of whether the officers had articulable suspicion for the stop, Prather was not entitled to flee from the officers. Stilley,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
The only witnesses who testified at the motion to suppress hearing were two of the responding officers. Prather did not cross-examine the officers at the hearing and stipulated to the facts of the State’s case at the subsequent bench trial.
Both parties to this appeal agree that the initial encounter between Prather and the two officers constituted a Terry stop or “second tier encounter” requiring a reasonable articulable suspicion, i.e., a particularized and objective basis for suspecting that a citizen is involved in criminal activity. See O’Neal v. State,
Compare Archer v. State,
That Prather was not arrested for violating OCGA § 40-6-395 is immaterial to our analysis. The underlying validity of an investigatory stop of a vehicle does not hinge upon whether charges are brought for observed traffic offenses. See Howard v. State,
OCGA § 16-10-24 (a) provides in pertinent part, “a person who knowingly and willfully obstructs or hinders any law enforcement officer in the lawful discharge of his official duties is guilty of a misdemeanor.”