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

Vines v. State

237 S.E.2d 17, 142 Ga. App. 616, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1422
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMay 24, 1977
Docket53915
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 237 S.E.2d 17 (Vines v. State) 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
Vines v. State, 237 S.E.2d 17, 142 Ga. App. 616, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1422 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

Banke, Judge. .

The defendant appeals from his conviction of a violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. His sole enumeration of error deals with the trial judge’s denial of a motion to suppress certain heroin which was found near him when he was stopped by police.

After observing the defendant for two and one-half hours, police officers approached him as he was standing on leafy ground near a car. When the defendant was addressed by an officer approaching on the opposite side of the car, he removed two foil packets from his pocket and *617 dropped them approximately one foot from his feet. A policeman who was on the same side of the car as the defendant and whose presence was then unknown to the defendant clearly saw the defendant’s action. That officer grabbed the defendant, picked up the packets, opened them, and found heroin. The defendant was arrested.

Argued May 10, 1977 Decided May 24, 1977 Rehearing denied June 22, 1977 Augustine & Lyndon, Edward E. Augustine, John F. Lyndon, for appellant. Harry N. Gordon, District Attorney, B. Thomas Cook, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

The defendant contends that the method by which the police discovered the heroin operated to deprive him of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment right to be secure from unreasonable searches. However, this constitutional protection does not apply to property which has been abandoned. State v. Roberts, 133 Ga. App. 206 (210 SE2d 387) (1974); Green v. State, 127 Ga. App. 713 (194 SE2d 678) (1972). The issue of abandonment vel non of the contraband is a factual issue to be resolved by the trior of fact — the judge hearing the motion. His finding on a motion to suppress must not be disturbed by this court if there is any evidence to support it. Anderson v. State, 133 Ga. App. 45 (2) (209 SE2d 665) (1974). We find sufficient evidence from which the trial judge could determine that the defendant, upon seeing approaching police officers, desired to abandon the heroin. In fact, we are unable to find any evidence in the transcript to the contrary.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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

Related

State v. Nesbitt
699 S.E.2d 368 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2010)
Augustus Mayfield v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Virginia, 2005
Edwards v. State
518 S.E.2d 426 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1999)
State v. Browning
433 S.E.2d 119 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1993)
Williams v. State
320 S.E.2d 389 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1984)
Olson v. State
303 S.E.2d 309 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
Simmons v. State
298 S.E.2d 313 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
Holley v. State
278 S.E.2d 738 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
237 S.E.2d 17, 142 Ga. App. 616, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vines-v-state-gactapp-1977.