Harvey v. State

The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to suppress, as the evidence established that the officer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion for making a second-tier investigatory stop.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

We granted interlocutory review of the trial court’s order denying Roderick Harvey’s motion to suppress evidence of a gun found on the ground five feet away from him during an encounter between him and police officers. He argues that the police detained him in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Finding no violation, we affirm.

“On reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, evidence is construed most favorably to uphold the findings and judgment and the trial court’s findings on disputed facts and credibility must be accepted unless clearly erroneous.” Wright v. State, 294 Ga. 798, 801 2 756 SE2d 513 2014 citation and punctuation omitted. This “means that we sustain all of the trial court’s findings that are supported by any evidence.” Ansley v. State, 325 Ga. App. 226 750 SE2d 484 2013 citation omitted. Because, at the hearing on the motion to suppress, Harvey directly challenged the credibility of the police officer who allegedly illegally detained him, “we do not apply a de novo standard of review, which applies only where the facts are undisputed.” Id. at 227 citation omitted. Compare State v. Underwood, 283 Ga. 498, 500-501 661 SE2d 529 2008 applying de novo standard where evidence is uncontroverted and credibility is not challenged. Moreover, “in reviewing a trial court’s decision on a motion to suppress we may consider all relevant evidence of record, wherever located,” Tyre v. State, 323 Ga. App. 37, 42 4 a 747 SE2d 106 2013 citation and punctuation omitted, which in this case includes the transcript of an earlier bond hearing. See Sanders v. State, 235 Ga. 425, 431-432 II 219 SE2d 768 1975 testimony adduced at pre-trial commitment hearing could be considered in determining whether trial court erred in ruling on motion to suppress, superseded in part by statute on other grounds as noted in State v. Dempsey, 290 Ga. 763, 765 1 727 SE2d 670 2012.

Harvey v. State

The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to suppress, as the evidence established that the officer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion for making a second-tier investigatory stop.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report