In this intеrlocutory appeal, Dusty Reynolds contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress drugs seized by the police at the time of his arrest. He argues that thе police had no reasonable articulable suspicion to justify his detention and thus his flight was lawful, and the subsequent seizure was illegal. For the reasons set forth below, we аffirm.
In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, “the evidence is construed most favorably to uphold the court’s findings and judgment. If there is any evidence to support the trial court’s findings on disputed facts and credibility, they will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.” (Punctuation omitted.) Fitz v. State. 1 “However, where the evidence is uncontroverted and nо 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.” (Punctuation omitted.) State v. Harris. 2
So viewed, the record shows that on the night of January 24, 2003, police officers
As Reynolds’s truck neared Danny’s drivewаy, his progress was impeded by the officers’ vehicles that had formed a perimeter around David’s residence. At the same time, several officers approаched Reynolds’s truck, identified themselves as law enforcement officers, and ordered him to exit the vehicle. Reynolds complied and shortly thereafter, one of the officers noticed a rifle lying on the floor of Reynolds’s truck. The officer yelled “gun” to alert the other officers as to the weapon’s presence, аt which point Reynolds started running away from the truck toward a wooded area. After a short chase, he was apprehended and arrested for obstruction of justice. In addition, the officers found a quantity of methamphetamine within a few feet of where Reynolds was apprehended.
Reynolds was indicted for possession of methamphetamine, 3 obstruction of a law enforcement officer, 4 and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. 5 He filed a motion to suppress the methamphetamine as evidence on the grounds that it was obtained as the result of an illegal stop. Following a hearing, the trial court issued a written order denying Reynolds’s motion. In its order, the trial court found that Reynolds’s vehicle was stopped outside of the curtilage of David Silvеrs’s residence and thus outside of the area covered by the search warrant. The trial court’s order also found that prior to Reynolds’s flight, the officers had no reasonable articulable suspicion warranting a search or further detention of Reynolds, but that Reynolds’s subsequent flight provided the suspicion justifying his arrest and the search of his person and vehicle. This interlocutory appeal followed.
1. Reynolds contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the methamphetamine fоund at the scene of his arrest, arguing that his initial detention was unlawful and therefore all of the actions of the officers following that detention were also unlawful. We disagree.
According to
Terry v. Ohio,
6
police-citizen encounters are generally categorized into three tiers: consensual encounters; brief investigatory stops, which require reаsonable articulable suspicion; and arrests that must be supported by probable cause.
Harris,
supra,
It is undisputed that the police subjected Reynolds to a
Terry
stop second-tier encounter: they stopped him and ordered him to exit his vehicle. At that time, the police had no specific articulable facts sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal conduct. He was not a subject of the search warrant
As in Strickland v. Stated 11 however, оur analysis does not end here, because the methamphetamine at issue was not found in Reynolds’s vehicle or on his person during the course of the improper Terry stop. It was found after Reynolds fled from the officers and allegedly discarded it prior to his apprehension. This Court has previously recognized that
evidence is not imрermissibly tainted simply because it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police. Rather, the more apt question in such a case is whethеr, granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which the objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by meаns sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.
Strickland,
supra,
However, that is not the action Reynolds took. Instead, the undisputed evidence is that Reynolds fled shortly after the detention began. “[R]egardless 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.”
Eichelberger,
supra,
“Atrial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress will be upheld if it is right for any
2. In light of our holding in Division 1, suрra, that the officers’ initial detention of Reynolds was not based on any reasonable articulable suspicion but that Reynolds’s flight provided an independent basis for his arrest and the seizure of the methamphetamine, Reynolds’s contention that his flight did not provide the officers with reasonable articulable suspicion is without merit.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
Fitz v. State,
State v. Harris,
OCGA § 16-13-30.
OCGA § 16-10-24.
OCGA § 16-11-106.
Terry v. Ohio,
Hughes v. Slate,
Smith v. State,
State v. Mallard,
State v. Holmes,
Strickland v. State,
Eichelberger v. State,
Davis v. State,
State v. Sims,