Edgar Betancourt and appellant Oscar Hernandez were tried by a jury and convicted of trafficking in cocaine.1 At trial, the State presented evidence that Betancourt and Hernandez were stopped by law enforcement officers on Interstate 85 in Gwinnett County. In the course of that traffic stop, the officers found a large quantity of cocaine hidden in the car in which Betancourt and Hernandez were traveling, a Nissan with a Massachusetts tag and dark tinted windows. The State also presented evidence of a similar transaction, in which Betancourt and Hernandez had been stopped two weeks earlier by law enforcement officers on Interstate 77 in North Carolina. In the course of that stop, the North Carolina officers found $195,000 hidden in the car in which Betancourt and Hernandez were traveling, a Mercedes with a Massachusetts tag and dark tinted windows. Betancourt and Hernandez both appealed from their convictions, and among other claims of error, Hernandez asserted that the trial court should have suppressed the evidence of the similar transaction because the State failed to prove the lawfulness of the North Carolina traffic stop.
In Betancourt v. State, 322 Ga. App. 201 744 SE2d 419 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. About the suppression of the similar transaction evidence, the Court of Appeals noted that the exclusionary rule is intended principally to deter unlawful searches and seizures, and “the rule applies only when its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served.” 322 Ga. App. at 208 3 b citation and punctuation omitted. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the suppression of evidence seized by out-of-state law enforcement officers would yield no appreciable deterrence, and as a result, it held that the exclusionary rule did not apply in this case to require the suppression of the similar transaction evidence, even assuming that such evidence was seized unlawfully. Id. at 209-210 3 b. On the petition of Hernandez, we granted a writ of certiorari to consider this holding by the Court of Appeals. We now affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, albeit on another ground.
