 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Gibbons3/30/2001
BA-075C
Pursuant to OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (4), the State of Georgia appeals the trial court's grant of a motion to suppress filed by Michael Stinemetz and Vincent Gibbons. The State contends the trial court erred by finding that the state trooper impermissibly expanded the scope of the traffic investigation and also erred by failing to find that the trooper had a reasonable suspicion to request Stinemetz's consent to search his person. We disagree, and affirm.
1. In reviewing a trial court's decision on a motion to suppress, an appellate court's responsibility is to ensure that there was a substantial basis for the decision. Morgan v. State, 195 Ga. App. 732, 735 (3) (394 SE2d 639) (1990). Our Supreme Court has established three guiding principles for reviewing such rulings:
First, when a motion to suppress is heard by the trial judge, that judge sits as the trier of facts. The trial judge hears the evidence, and his findings based upon conflicting evidence are analogous to the verdict of a jury and should not be disturbed by a reviewing court if there is any evidence to support it.
Second, the trial court's decision with regard to questions of fact and credibility must be accepted unless clearly erroneous. Third, the reviewing court must construe the evidence most favorably to the upholding of the trial court's findings and judgment. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Tate v. State, 264 Ga. 53, 54 (1) (440 SE2d 646) (1994).
Further,
redibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony is a decision-making power that lies solely with the trier of fact. The trier of fact is not obligated to believe a witness even if the testimony is uncontradicted and may accept or reject any portion of the testimony. Id. at 56.
2. Construed most favorably toward upholding the trial court's findings and judgment, the evidence shows that a Georgia State Trooper pulled over Stinemetz and Gibbons for a seatbelt violation. The traffic stop was recorded by a video camera in the trooper's cruiser and the trial court viewed this videotape during the motion to suppress hearing. This tape shows that the state trooper immediately asked Stinemetz "twenty questions" that were unrelated to the reason he pulled him over. A transcript of their encounter follows:
Q: How ya doing? May I see your driver's license please? I stopped you because you didn't have your seat belt on, but I see you got it on now.
A: [Unintelligible] . . . better put it on.
Q: Y'all didn't have 'em on did you? Where are y'all heading to?
A: Huh?
Q: Where y'all heading to?
A: Back to Nashville.
Q: Where you been?
A: We went down to Atlanta to visit some friends. They had a Memorial Day party down there.
Q: Step back [Unintelligible.] . . . I can't hardly hear you.
[Stinemetz complies by getting out of the car and he and the officer stand in front of the patrol car directly in front of the video camera.]
A: Yeah, they had a Memorial Day party with some friends. Were down there visiting, today.
Q: Where you work at?
A: Upchurch Construction.
[Stinemetz tucks his shirt in and places his left hand in his left pocket in a natural, habitual manner.]
Q: Take your hand out of your pocket for me. You work where now?
A: Upchurch Construction.
Q: What do you do for them?
A: Drive a dump truck.
Q: Do you have a commercial driver's license?
A: Yes.
Q: Whose car?
A
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|