 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Blair7/28/1999
tain whether Smith was under the influence, the officer asked if Smith had any narcotics in the truck and sought consent to search it. After Smith refused to give his consent, the officer summoned a K-9 unit to the scene. This court held the officer's detention of Smith in order to search his truck was based on nothing more than a "hunch" that the truck contained narcotics and was not authorized by Terry. Id. at 455.
Here, the officer stopped the car in which Blair was traveling in order to investigate the car's registration and licensing. See OCGA § 40-2-20 (making a person's failure to register new or used motor vehicles within 30 days of purchase a misdemeanor punishable by fine). The evidence supports the trial court's finding that the officer abandoned that investigation and detained the occupants of the car in order to conduct a search for drugs. See generally Tate v. State, 264 Ga. 53, 54 (1) (440 SE2d 646) (1994). The court was authorized to conclude that the detention was impermissible because the facts known to the officer did not provide reasonable suspicion of illegal drug activity.
Pitts is factually similar to this case but ultimately distinguishable. The defendants in Pitts were traveling along Interstate 95 in Camden County in a rental van when they were stopped by a deputy sheriff because of the driver's failure to dim the vehicle's headlights in response to oncoming traffic. In Pitts, much like this case, the investigating officer detained the occupants of the vehicle in order to conduct a drug search because they appeared unusually tense and gave conflicting versions of their travel itinerary. But this court justified the detention in Pitts by holding that it was
"not unconstitutionally intrusive when balanced against the widespread clear danger of drug peddling from Florida via the roads of this state." [Cit.] Pitts, supra, at 311.
No such justification has been asserted here. Pitts is not controlling.
Judgment affirmed. Andrews, P. J., and Ruffin, J., concur.
|