*1 September 26, 1984 Decided Rehearing 16, 1984. denied October Martin, L. Thomas, Yancy, Clarence Martin, Johnson & Williams, Jr., Me- Hart, G. Clark, Brinson Lee & R. Jonathan Hartridge, & Walter C. Mundell, Bouhan, Levy, Williams lissa Karsman, Brooks, Callaway, Paul W. III, Painter Stone John W. Painter, appellees. THE
41047. STATE. SHAW 371) (320 SE2d Weltner, Justice. auto- of Shaw’s open premises business
Police officers entered hours, of execut- purpose repair shop during mobile business motor specified to of a relating the front-half ing search warrant their instructions of thought to be stolen. Under vehicle which was parked on they of vehiсles superiors, through the windshields lot, and vehicle identification Shaw’s outdoor wrote down of vehicle. No vehicle which were on the dashboard each visible opened; physical object no entered; any no door of vehicle was by subsequently Two identified seized from the vehicles. vehicles computer impounded. check as stolen later were relating of the vehi- suppress
Shaw’s
to one
motion
by the trial court.
cles
determined to be stolen was sustained
later
to determine
Appeаls
granted
of
reversed. We
certiorari
Court
circumstances,
whether,
of vehicle identifica-
under these
recordation
State
“plain view
tion numbers was authorized
dоctrine.”
Shaw,
App.
170 Ga.
SE2d
State,
(2) (233
this
rial “was case in which who walked see.” Sеe also (5) perceive We unable to rational are case, glass
distinction between observation windshield, glass and observation privacy legitimate expеctation this case. “There no [cits.] may be portion of an automobile which shielding interior dili- passersby or inquisitive viewed from outside the vehicle either short, policе the conduct that enabled gent officers. officers] [the a search within observe the interior of was not vehicles] [the Brown, — —U. S. of the Fourth Amendment.” Texas v. meaning 1535, 1542; Accordingly, judgment Appeals the Court affirmed. Judgment except concur, Smith, J., All the Justices affirmed. who dissents. September
Decided Rehearing denied October *2 Ralph Jr., Hill, William Attorney, Sparks, Lomenick, Jr.,
David L. District J. As- Robert Attorney, appellee. sistant District dissenting.
Smith, Justice, involving garage This is a warrant case a fenced area behind the body shop. and office of a officers The warrant this case the authorized clip, end, involved to search the enclosed area for the front or of a 1981 Monte Carlo with vehicle identification number 1G1A [thing]” “instrument, article, Z37J1BK469818. This was the sole or described the warrant. special agent Georgia Investigation
The Bureau of who prior led the search testified that he was instructed to the search to insрect every vehicle on the lot. He he stated that the other agents They did “make a check of all of the vehicles that were there.” inspected sixty-five vehiсles and did not see 1981 Monte Carlo. pretext launching [can]
“The officer
[a]
not use
warrant as
investigation
origins
full scale
[is]
as to the
item which
criminating
Hogan
(231
716,
on its
v.
face.”
140 Ga.
agent
this case has testified that he
use
exactly
quite
warrant
this manner. He was
aware that the
sixty-five cars he had searched were not Monte Carlos. A warrant tо
particular
sweep
search for one
car
used to effect a blanket
adjacent
body shop.
entire enclosed area
ally
This search was actu-
prohibited search,
the Fourth
Amendment to
Georgia
1,
1,
U. S. Constitution and Art. Sec. Par. 13 of the
Constitu-
Hogan, supra;
States,
74,
tion.
Marrón United
rant. The recordation naming possessing charge, agent a warrant be inadvertent. to one of the specific to “сheck” all automobile, instructed that he was testified vehicles and did all of the
vehicles, to “check” intended says going he to do a man of the vehicles. When “cheсk” all something be said be inad- it, can then does his actions acquire pretense agent his as a used vertent. Coolidge, supra at 2040. 91 SC at See certain evidence. disсovery described here could be if of the evidence Even would the evidence inadvertent, give still determine that court must investigating evi- that the believe agents could hаve discov- with a crime. dence is connected ered two identification things have had The vehicles could their search. iden- have lacked vehicle or could the vehicles tification numbers.1 numbers, the
If did not have identification the vehicles place. §§ OCGA had taken See have had evidence that a crime would 40-4-6, of an identi- If 40-4-21. thе court determines ap- probable cause, it must in order to fication number establishes ply exception here, do to that an officer has to then all *3 identifica- in is look where establish tion established lawful behavior. volved turned this state numbers of the identification should be. number
Only illegal acts up behavior. evidence of criminal citеs support that it sees no dif The court states display through glass case the observation a ference between through glass in a windshield here. Sewell observation and the generally evidence will medium which an observes Many prove plain them to be irrelevant to the view issue. officers glasses. selves wear hinges plain and the most often on the context view issue bloody
object a a knife or ba- of the observation. The observation of probably cause, establish zooka a windshield will object sight on a where the of an identification number an supra, object Sewell, observation case often would not. The object clearly according of the court. was contraband clearly just observation is not indicative supra, addition, a retail area involved of an area around the search not involve a warrant. This case revolves that public. clearly open not The search was limited to the 1 Actually, agents’ number even reached the identification search should have was nоt a 1981 Monte Carlo. once it that the vehicle under observation was established Sewell is majority’s warrant. irrelevant holding.2 Brown, The passage cited in the majority opinion is in- apposite First, to this case at least three reasons. passage dealt with the first issue the case: whether the officer was legitimately present at the question. scene when he Here, observed the evidence agent possessed to search property. The quoted passage does not relate to plain сontested facet of the issue in purely superfluous. view this case. is It addition, quoted passage held that there was no search involved in Brown. we have a entry search warrant and an onto private I property. hope agents’ should that actions constituted a search.
Finally, Brown support does not a holding sight that identification сause, numbers establishes necessary requirement a finding exception. The officer in Brown testified he recognized that the balloon fell from the de- pocket fendаnt’s glove and the vials in compartment para- drug phernalia. ‘practical, “A probability nontechnical’ incriminating evidence is involved” could developed have in Brown had the officer there into the car and seen a vehicle identification num- Brown, supra, ber. 103 SC at 1543. if anything, supports the original trial court’s decision.
As actually this sеarch search and did not fall under the I exception, would reverse the of Appeals’ opinion ruling and reinstate the of the trial court. SCHIEFFELIN COMPANY v. STRICKLAND et al. -358)
Hill, Chief Justice. & Company, a New York corporation, licensed producer spirits importer distilled of wines. Prior to spirits distributed in Georgia through distilled and wine five desig- rules, July 2, 1981, nated wholesalers. applicablе Pursuant on *4 Commissioner, Strickland, Schieffelin filed with the Revenue W. E. Change whereby its Notice of Intention Designated Wholesalers would thereafter Georgia through do business one its dеsignated wholesalers. The other objected. hearings four wholesalers After January February the Commissioner denied Schieffelin’s proposed reduction of July wholesalers order entered 19, 1982, On August Superior filed Court of 436) (1977), cited is almost reason, equally place opinion. identical in its facts For this it is out in the