 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Harris v. State10/11/2001
William Justin Harris was convicted of possession of methamphetamine. On appeal, he claims that (i) he was stopped and searched in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, (ii) the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, (iii) the prosecution improperly put his character in issue, and (iv) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We reverse because the prosecution put Harris's character in issue in direct contravention of the trial court's pre-trial ruling, and because the trial court gave an erroneous instruction to the jury in connection with the improper character evidence.
On appeal from a criminal conviction, the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict. So viewed, the evidence shows that the Dade County Sheriff's Office and other law enforcement agencies set up a checkpoint on the Slygo Road exit off of Interstate 59. The road block was set up to "make the road safe," and to look for DUI drivers and other criminal offenses. The police placed a sign by the interstate before the exit which stated "Prepare to stop, drug checkpoint ahead," although there was no checkpoint on the interstate itself. The actual checkpoint was situated on the exit after the drug checkpoint sign with the anticipation that drug users and drug runners would get off on that exit in order to avoid being stopped at the phantom "drug checkpoint" on the interstate.
Harris was a passenger in a car which was stopped at the Slygo exit checkpoint. An officer noticed that Harris was extremely nervous, and asked the K-9 unit to run a dog around the car, and the dog alerted to the presence of drugs. Officers asked the occupants to step out of the car, and they conducted a "pat down" of Harris. When Harris took his shoes off, the officers conducting the search saw the end cap of a small flashlight directly at his feet. No one saw Harris drop the cap, but no officer had seen the cap before Harris began to take off his shoes. Inside the cap were three bags containing methamphetamine. The police expected that drugs would be thrown out of a few of the vehicles before being stopped at the checkpoint; accordingly, several officers were assigned to do nothing but walk up and down the exit ramp looking for discarded contraband. None of the approximately 15 law enforcement officials in the area had noticed the flashlight cap before it was seen at Harris's feet.
1. Harris claims that the checkpoint violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, this claim may not be considered for the first time on appeal. Harris made no written motion to suppress before trial and failed to object to the state's tender of the methamphetamine into evidence.
2. Harris argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We disagree. Harris emphasizes that none of the officers saw the flashlight cap in his actual possession, and that other motorists had thrown items out of their vehicles as they approached the checkpoint. He maintains that anyone could have dropped the cap, that there is no evidence of actual possession, and that constructive possession requires more than a showing of mere proximity. However, the evidence, and the inferences that can be logically derived from the evidence, shows more than mere spatial proximity between Harris and the methamphetamine. The flashlight cap was found directly at Harris's feet, and there were no other persons in the immediate vicinity aside from the police. Although there were several officers in the area, none of them saw the cap until Harris removed his shoes. Police were assigned to look for contraband on the ground
Page 1 2 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|