State v. Stevens

Court of Appeals of Georgia

State v. Stevens

605 S.E.2d 406, 269 Ga. App. 769, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 3242, 2004 Ga. App. LEXIS 1287

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 29, 2004

DocketA04A1188

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 605 S.E.2d 406 (State v. Stevens) 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. Stevens, 605 S.E.2d 406, 269 Ga. App. 769, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 3242, 2004 Ga. App. LEXIS 1287 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Barnes, Judge.

The State appeals from the trial court’s order granting Andrew Stevens’ motion to suppress marijuana found in his backpack during a search of his girlfriend’s apartment. We affirm.

The parties stipulated to the facts surrounding the search during the motion to suppress hearing. Stevens’ girlfriend gave written *770 consent for police to search her apartment or “the premises.” The police had seen a pipe with possible drug residue on it in Stevens’ car and asked his girlfriend at the time of the search if he carried any items around with him that were in her apartment. The girlfriend described the backpack and the police found a backpack matching her description in the pull-down attic. The police knew that the backpack belonged to Stevens and that he had been in the apartment earlier in the day. Stevens was not present during the search and the police did not attempt to obtain his consent for a search of his backpack, even though he may have been in police custody at the time of the search. Stevens did not live in the apartment and his name was not on the lease.

Decided September 29, 2004. Jeffrey H. Brickman, District Attorney, Steven C. Chen, Assistant District Attorney, for appellant. Davis, Zipperman, Kirschenbaum & Lotito, Nicholas A. Lotito, for appellee.

Based on these stipulated facts, the trial court properly granted Stevens’ motion to suppress. “Where the police have notice, as admitted here, that they are searching the personal effects of a visitor, such a search is illegal absent independent justification for a personal search.” State v. Browning, 209 Ga. App. 197, 198 (1) (433 SE2d 119) (1993) (police illegally searched woman’s purse found on apartment floor). See also Childers v. State, 158 Ga. App. 613 (281 SE2d 349) (1981) (purse); State v. Brassell, 144 Ga. App. 279 (241 SE2d 57) (1977) (backpack and trunk); Hayes v. State, 141 Ga. App. 706 (234 SE2d 360) (1977) (suitcase). As the State’s sole justification for the search was the girlfriend’s consent to search her apartment, there is no independent basis to uphold the search.

Judgment affirmed.

Blackburn, P. J., and Mikell, J., concur.

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

Barnes, Judge.

The State appeals from the trial court’s order granting Andrew Stevens’ motion to suppress marijuana found in his backpack during a search of his girlfriend’s apartment. We affirm.

The parties stipulated to the facts surrounding the search during the motion to suppress hearing. Stevens’ girlfriend gave written *770 consent for police to search her apartment or “the premises.” The police had seen a pipe with possible drug residue on it in Stevens’ car and asked his girlfriend at the time of the search if he carried any items around with him that were in her apartment. The girlfriend described the backpack and the police found a backpack matching her description in the pull-down attic. The police knew that the backpack belonged to Stevens and that he had been in the apartment earlier in the day. Stevens was not present during the search and the police did not attempt to obtain his consent for a search of his backpack, even though he may have been in police custody at the time of the search. Stevens did not live in the apartment and his name was not on the lease.

Decided September 29, 2004. Jeffrey H. Brickman, District Attorney, Steven C. Chen, Assistant District Attorney, for appellant. Davis, Zipperman, Kirschenbaum & Lotito, Nicholas A. Lotito, for appellee.

Based on these stipulated facts, the trial court properly granted Stevens’ motion to suppress. “Where the police have notice, as admitted here, that they are searching the personal effects of a visitor, such a search is illegal absent independent justification for a personal search.” State v. Browning, 209 Ga. App. 197, 198 (1) (433 SE2d 119) (1993) (police illegally searched woman’s purse found on apartment floor). See also Childers v. State, 158 Ga. App. 613 (281 SE2d 349) (1981) (purse); State v. Brassell, 144 Ga. App. 279 (241 SE2d 57) (1977) (backpack and trunk); Hayes v. State, 141 Ga. App. 706 (234 SE2d 360) (1977) (suitcase). As the State’s sole justification for the search was the girlfriend’s consent to search her apartment, there is no independent basis to uphold the search.

Judgment affirmed.

Blackburn, P. J., and Mikell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

605 S.E.2d 406, 269 Ga. App. 769, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 3242, 2004 Ga. App. LEXIS 1287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-stevens-gactapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack