Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/State v. Rivers

State v. Rivers

235 S.E.2d 393, 142 Ga. App. 96, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1491
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 25, 1977
Docket53661
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 235 S.E.2d 393 (State v. Rivers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Rivers, 235 S.E.2d 393, 142 Ga. App. 96, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1491 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

Banke, Judge.

The defendant was accused of possession of marijuana. The trial court sustained his motion to suppress the contraband, from which order the state appeals.

During the evening of March 21, 1976, two uniformed police officers were in an unmarked van watching an Atlanta parking lot for CB radio thieves. As they observed, the defendant entered a car after looking around, lay on the front seat, fumbled under the seat, left the car, and again cautiously looked around. The police approached the defendant, checked his registration, determined that the automobile in question belonged to him, and let him go. They resumed their stake-out. Ten minutes later, the defendant returned to the parking lot and did the same thing. On that occasion, the officers approached the defendant, who was standing near the automobile, and one of them said, "Sir, I think we need to talk to you. Do you mind?” Upon seeing a manila envelope partially hidden by the floor mat of the car, one of the policemen said, "You mind if we search your car?” To which the defendant replied, "No, I don’t.” Marijuana was found in the envelope.

Although the defendant did not challenge the testimony as detailed above, he contends that his consent to search was given because of the over-powering presence of the police officers. However, there is no evidence that the defendant evinced any reluctance or was subjected to any coercion. No other factors such as youth, lack of *97 education, low intelligence, physical detention, harsh questioning, or use of physical force are present here. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218 (1973); Brand v. State, 129 Ga. App. 747 (201 SE2d 180) (1973). "Probable cause and a warrant are not required for a search and seizure which is conducted pursuant to consent.” McKendree v. State, 133 Ga. App. 295 (211 SE2d 154) (1974). The trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to suppress.

Submitted April 11, 1977 Decided April 25, 1977. Hinson McAuliffe, Solicitor, Charles Hadaway, Assistant Solicitor, for appellant. Horton J. Greene, for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

Quillian, P. J., and Shulman, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Villa v. State
379 S.E.2d 417 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1989)
Wilson v. State
347 S.E.2d 709 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1986)
Noland v. State
343 S.E.2d 763 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1986)
Crews v. State
316 S.E.2d 549 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1984)
Reeves v. State
314 S.E.2d 682 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1984)
Lester v. State
295 S.E.2d 566 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
Williams v. State
261 S.E.2d 720 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)
Shaw v. State
256 S.E.2d 150 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)
State v. Reid
255 S.E.2d 71 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
235 S.E.2d 393, 142 Ga. App. 96, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rivers-gactapp-1977.