*1 they legal right object adoption, they that have a to to the are not adoption proceeding, authorized to intervene in this granting and the order Murphy McCarthy, intervention must be reversed. See at 102. Judgment Rickman, JJ., reversed. Andrews and concur. September 14,

Decided 2017. Lloyd Murray, appellant. Sr., D. appellees. Barr, Karen D. A17A1043. TAYLORv. THE STATE. (805 Judge. Bethel, Taylor appeals Derwin Miles from the denial of his motion for a following single new trial his conviction on a count of marijuana, years imprisonment. for which he was sentenced to 30 On appeal, trial, as in his motion for a new he contends that the trial pretrial proceedings by denying suppress court erred in his motion to during stop. evidence obtained from a search of his vehicle a traffic Because we with the trial court that the law enforcement officer stopped Taylor who articulated a reasonable sufficient to allow him to detain for further investi- gation, sup- we affirm the trial court’s denial of motion to press and his motion for a new trial. appeal suppress,

On from a denial ofa motion to “this Court must favorably uphold ruling construe the evidence most of the trial 749) (2002) court.” Jones (citation omitted). application The “trial court’s of law to facts which undisputed subject (citation omitted). are is to de novo review.” Id. entirely testimony

Here, the relevant evidence consisted at a hearing suppress by performed on motion to who the search on the vehicle. The was a canine handler with county’s patrol stopped uniform division. He testified that he temporary custody that the mother had fees to S. S. returned 278) (2015) misplaced. adoption inform the court that issue s of custody protect to S. S. The court concluded that the trial court’s reliance on Evans v. visitation but later dismissed the action for lack of already The been awarded grandparents custody rights support custody. in .Ewans were allowed to intervene in a had had alre On that already Sangster, grandparents ady ground, obtained. been subject the court awarded adjudicated Id. at 538 matter had wilfully jurisdiction (4) (b). Georgia stepparent attorney failed to *2 while on Interstate 75 for failure to maintain lane and Taylor driving for window tint that was too dark. As was the having Taylor providing with his license and the observed in deputy registration, deputy car numerous air fresheners and that were releas- Taylor’s packages odor of air freshener. The also noticed ing “overwhelming” deputy hands as he his license and Taylor’s shaking provided registration, reaction the took as a of nervousness on deputy sign Taylor’s part. exited his vehicle at the and he stood

Taylor deputy’s request, outside the vehicle as the wrote two traffic deputy warnings The two had a discussion outside the vehicle in Taylor. prolonged which answered a number of the Taylor deputy’s questions, including where he was from at the time of the traffic told coming stop. Taylor the he had been in Atlanta his uncle in the deputy visiting hospital but to where he was he was struggled identify hospitalized why that, discussion, sick. The also testified in the course of their deputy statements about where he had the Taylor gave conflicting stayed before, first him that he in an telling stayed apartment later that he had in a hotel. saying stayed conversation, a break in this the

During deputy stepped away a moment to call for and then returned to to backup speak Taylor The the forms for the two again.1 deputy completed warnings then a call to the with driver’s license and placed dispatcher Taylor’s number. The then asked for consent to search his tag deputy Taylor vehicle, that he was aware of “a lot of criminal telling Taylor and down this interstate.” refused the going up Taylor deputy’s time, for consent to search. At that the was still request deputy license and with a written warn- holding Taylor’s registration along offenses, for the traffic and the had not confirmed ing dispatcher yet license and information. Taylor’s registration vehicle, After refused to allow the to search the the Taylor deputy indicated to that he was to over a K-9 deputy Taylor going bring dog sniff with narcotics vehicle. As the specialized was to his car to retrieve the the dis- deputy walking patrol dog, to the license and patcher replied deputy confirming Taylor’s regis- car, tration information. After from his collecting dog patrol car to conduct a sniff of the vehicle. deputy brought dog Taylor’s sniff, The to the and the dog provided positive response vehicle, to search he found a proceeded whereupon large suitcase in the trunk containing significant quantity marijuana. because he noted so stop” The consent unfolding. to search the vehicle out of concern for testified that he called for many The “red flags” further and believed that “more than explained backup that he called for at this safety. point in his encounter with just a normal routine traffic backup before seeking *3 816

Taylor charged trafficking marijuana. was arrested and with Taylor suppress trial, Before moved to all evidence seized from his deputy. through vehicle The trial court denied the motion series of orders.2 A bench trial followed at which evidence from the Taylor convicted, search ofthe vehicle was admitted. and he filed motion, a motion for a new trial. The trial court denied that and this appeal followed.

Taylor argues that the lacked a reasonable articulable suspicion activity of criminal sufficient to detain for a purpose sniff of the vehicle after the ofthe traffic had concluded. suspicion, Absent such reasonable the extension of an otherwise completed traffic in order to conduct a free-air search of a vehicle using drug dog protection against violates the Fourth Amendment’s Rodriguez States, _ unreasonable searches and seizures. v. United S._ (135 1609, 1614, U. SCt 191 LE2d An officer who stop, however, initiates a lawful traffic investigation can shift into a criminal long suspi so as the officer can articulate reasonable occurring. Rodriguez cion that criminal See v. 295 Ga. satisfy suspicion” standard,

To investigation this “reasonable the officer’s justified by specific

must be articulable facts give sufficient to rise to a reasonable of criminal suspicion requires particularized conduct. Articulable and objective suspecting basis for that a citizen is involved in activity. Although criminal higher need not meet the probable cause, standard of it must be more than a caprice mere or a hunch. Ga. App. (625 SE2d 418) (2005) (citation Whitt,

State emphasis omitted).

To determine whether a reasonable articulable exists, courts must look to the of the circumstances. upon picture detaining Based that whole officers must particularized objective suspecting have a basis for particular person stopped activity. Ga.App. (569 SE2d 254) (2002) 189-190

State punctuation omitted). Ultimately, State bears “[t]he petition suppress. After reconsideration for leave to file an The trial judge filed a certificate of immediate interlocutory appeal. and a second hearing, See Case No. A16I0019. the trial court review, but this Court denied again denied the motion to *4 lawful, the burden of that the search of the car was and to proving burden, the State must show that it was lawful to detain carry until the time the indicated the of drug dog presence [the defendant] drugs.” Dominguez

(2011) (citation omitted).

Here, we with the trial court that the State has carried this agree burden, as the of circumstances encountered the at by deputy the scene allowed him to form the level of neces- requisite suspicion to convert the traffic into a broader criminal sary stop investigation. The trial court found that nervousness was not a Taylor’s supposed factor, own, on its that the could consider forming reasonable and we with that suspicion activity, determination. See Barraco v. (2) (b) (537 when other factors are nervous 114) (2000) (“[e]ven present, behavior of a who has been an armed law enforce- person stopped by ment officer is not an unusual and is not response necessarily strong evidence to either reasonable support probable cause”). However, determined, the trial court and we that the agree, strong vehicle, smell of air fresheners in the Taylor’s vague statements about his uncle’s illness and his own whereabouts the before, and the location of the traffic a stretch of stop along Interstate 75 that was known to be a by drug trafficking corridor were factors that allowed the to form and articulate a reasonable drug activity. State that this Court’s decision in

Taylor suggests Thompson3 error, demonstrates that the trial court’s determination was in argu indicates that the occurrence of a ing interstate known to be a corridor is not a suffi highway initiated, cient basis of In when the the officer noted that the defendant was nervous and that there was smell of and air fresheners from the car. detergent coming at 188. These were the bases of articu lated the officer who initiated the even stop, opinion reflects that occurred Interstate 20. This along Court discounted the view that nervousness alone could form a again sufficient basis of and ruled that suspicion, “[although laundry sheets can be used to mask the odor of an detergent dryer substance, are themselves substances that can be used for legal and thus do not the officer’s further detention legal purpose justify under the this case.” Id. at 190 (emphasis [the defendant] facts of thus that because his interactions with the supplied). Taylor suggests 3 256Ga. at 189. *5 presence

officer, fresheners, of air and his location on Interstate forming 75 were the suspicion, Thompson factors the could consider in

analysis. disagree.

controls our We Taylor argues knowledge” case,

In this that it is “common “just drug Interstate 20 is as much a corridor” as Interstate 75 and Thompson that the outcome ofthis case should be identical to that in . However, opinion , in even the facts set forth in this Court’s 20, show that the occurred on Interstate it does not appear that the officers in that case articulated the location of the as a basis for their or that the court considered evidence that the area was a known corridor. in relying solely , the officers were on their observation of the detergent defendant’s nervousness and the smell of and air freshener forming in their See id. at 190. case, however,

In this the trial court determined that the over whelming fresheners, smell of air the location of the and, Taylor’s interstate, inconsistent statements to the were totality, required that, all factors could allow the to form the suspicion. As this Court’s decisions in v. and Richbow v. Wilson State4 strong along indicate, the odor of air freshener with other State5 seemingly may innocuous activities allow an officer to form a reason activity taking place.6Additionally, able that criminal may vague presented by officer consider stories person patterns operation in the vehicle7 and the “modes or of forming certain kinds of lawbreakers” in reasonable activity. Thompson, punc criminal 256 Ga. at 189-190 omitted). Though acknowledge any 75, tuation we that Interstate like public thoroughfare, may legitimate purposes, other be traveled for we are not blind to the considerable of law enforcement agencies dealing major highways with those who use interstate transport cognizant experi substances. We are also that an properly may enced and trained law enforcement officer conclude place that otherwise lawful route” is which takes on a “known actually ongoing activity.8 evidence of criminal See Giles faced with other consider in and defendant’s dashboard camera on the 5 293 Ga. 6 7 Wilson, This case See also air fresheners are forming suspicion). Vega inability aptly suspicious illustrates 287-289 doing deputy’s patrol at 289 identify behaviors, so to hide the smell of (2) (a), (b) (702 (noting the location he had point. officers conflicts in statements made car shows The video of the traffic may permissibly that, drugs just upon discovering visited as factors the officer could or confuse 499) (2013) (recognizing infer that drivers who use stop captured by drug-sniffing dogs). vehicle’s large package occupants that, *6 App. (1) (642 SE2d 921) (2007). 1, 1-3 284 Ga. because the facts of this case show that factors in addition to those considered in part deputy’s suspicion, Thompson inap- formed of the is posite analysis. to our although Taylor’s by

Wethus conclude that conduct observed may “susceptible officer at the time of the in this case have been explanation, illegal to an innocent ... it is also consistent with activity” App. punctuation omitted). Giles, 284 Ga. at 4 and Accordingly, we with the trial court that the deputy of the — by namely, circumstances encountered the smell of air fresheners, the location of the what the officer knew to be vague by corridor, and the and stories offered —Taylor suspicion necessary allowed him to form the reasonable investigation. commence a criminal We therefore affirm the trial Taylor’s suppress, and, turn, court’s denial of motion to its denial of his motion for a new trial. Judgment Branch, J., McFadden, J., concurs. P. concurs affirmed.

specially. Presiding Judge, concurring specially

McFADDEN, The 20 to 25 air fresheners that were in use in car are likely explanation. evidence, for which there is no innocent Cf. 254) (2002) 256 Ga. State (“Although laundry detergent dryer

and sheets can be used to mask legal substance, the odor of an are themselves substances legal purpose justify that can be used for a further detention of and thus donot the officer’s case.”). under the facts of this That by place evidence is bolstered the evidence that the took on a finding, known route and the trial court’s written which the supports, shaking evidence hands were when the stopped him, even the trial court characterized that evidence “relatively insignificant” ruling as when he announced his at the end suppression hearing. of the Those items are sufficient on the facts of finding this case to sustain a of reasonable first rodeo!” While an officer’s blanche to initiate containing marijuana “knowledge “extensive interdiction with similar offenses informs reasonable conclusions that criminal suspicion); interpret as factors to be considered when as “red Giles v. drug trafficking flags” during drug investigations, (1) (b) (540 SE2d 696) (2000) (noting in the area” was factor in training a traffic car, evaluating knowledge our cases do credit an officer’s stop. deputy gleefully experience See, otherwise lawful actions that an officer drug smuggling patterns”); e.g., upholding 921) (2007) (noting arresting Wilson, alone do not that officers’ “first-hand exclaimed to determination of reasonable training provide Taylor, State v. at 289 an officer carte taking place). “this ain’t experience” (officer’s officer’s Causey, may my *7 820 question Taylor’s vague

So I would not reach the whether conflicting statements about his uncle’s illness and his own where- meaningful abouts the before constitute inconsistencies. See (746 918) (2013);Migliore Nash v. SE2d Ga., State of any suggestion And I would avoid that we defer to officers’ training experience perform analysis required when we ofus place, the Fourth Amendment. In the first the case would not be drugs here if had not been found. I donot doubt that such per- enable officers to make determinations that other — including judges, sons, could not make such as determinations “drug smuggling patterns, objective about combined with . . . obser- indicating pat- vations criminal in accordance with those terns!)]” (1) (642 Giles determinations, And I do not doubt that those even about matters impossible explain layperson, difficult or to a such as the difference guilty nervousness, between and innocent are often sound. But in protect upon protect, order to what the Fourth Amendment calls us to analysis explained we must limit our to what can be in words. September 14, Decided Lynn appellant. Bearden,

D. Rosemary Attorney, Greene, III, M. District Newton Assis- ErleJ. Attorney, appellee. tant District

A17A1079. HILL et al. v. ILES. Judge. McMillian, grandparents Hill, L., Willie and Yvonne the maternal of K. appeal legal custody child, minor the trial court’s award of sole (“Father”). father, K. L. to her Gerren lies The Hills assert that the awarding legal custody trial court erred in Father sole of K. L. (1) because issue before the trial court was Father’s motion guardianship (2) to vacate the Hills’ of K. L. and K. L.’s mother (“Mother”) given pending hearing was not notice of the action or follow, date.1 For the reasons that we vacate and remand. response appeal. Father has not filed a brief on