 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelson v. State11/15/2001
hat, since Officer Warren did not have a reasonable suspicion that Nelson was committing or about to commit a traffic violation, there could be no basis for a Terry stop. A traffic violation or reasonable suspicion concerning one, however, is not the touchstone of a Terry inquiry.
Although an officer may conduct a brief investigative stop of a vehicle (see Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648 (99 SC 1391, 59 LE2d 660 (1979)), such a stop must be justified by "specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 21 (88 SC 1868, 20 LE2d 889) (1968). See also United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873 (95 SC 2574, 45 LE2d 607) (1975). The U. S. Supreme Court recognized the difficulty in defining "the elusive concept of what cause is sufficient to authorize police to stop a person," and concluded that the essence of the elusive concept was to take the totality of the circumstances into account and determine whether the detaining officer has "a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity." United States v. Cortez, 449 U. S. 411, 417-418 (101 SC 690, 66 LE2d 621) (1981). "This demand for specificity in the information upon which police action is predicated is the central teaching of [the Supreme Court's] Fourth Amendment jurisprudence." Terry v. Ohio, supra at 21, n. 18. (Emphasis supplied.) Vansant v. State, 264 Ga. 319, 320 (2) (443 SE2d 474) (1994). See also, e.g., Durden v. State, 199 Ga. App. 397, 398 (405 SE2d 50) (1991).
Therefore, denial of the motions on this basis was not error.
Further, the trial court concluded, and we concur, that the stop was appropriate because of the officer's concern for the car's occupants and the general public based upon his suspicion that a fight was about to break out in a moving automobile. "The State has inherent police power which `"extends to the protection of the lives, health and property of the citizen, . . . ."' Veit v. State, 182 Ga. App. 753, 756 (2) (357 SE2d 113) (1987)." State v. Forehand, 246 Ga. App. 590, 592 (1) (542 SE2d 110) (2000). The stop was proper to investigate whether the occupants were a threat to one another or the public at large. State v. Hammang, 249 Ga. App. 811 (549 SE2d 440) (2001); State v. Armstrong, 223 Ga. App. 350, 351 (477 SE2d 635) (1996).
2. The second and third enumerations of error, that there was insufficient evidence of the crimes charged and the trial court erred in denying Nelson's motion for new trial, both address the legal sufficiency of the evidence and are addressed together. White v. State, 233 Ga. App. 24, 25 (503 SE2d 26) (1998).
As reflected in the factual statement, supra, the evidence was legally sufficient. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
Judgment affirmed.
Eldridge and Miller, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|