Blitch v. State

Officers had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the defendant's vehicle based in part on information an informant provided.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Edwin Blitch was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute OCGA § 16-13-30 b. Trial counsel moved to suppress the cocaine seized during a warrantless search of Blitch’s vehicle, and following a hearing, the trial court took the matter under advisement. The trial court did not issue a ruling on Blitch’s motion, and at Blitch’s trial, the recovered cocaine was admitted into evidence without objection from trial counsel. Blitch was convicted of the charged offense, and he appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial, contending that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve his objections to the legality of the warrantless search. We discern no error and affirm.

“On appeal from a criminal conviction, a defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict.” Punctuation and footnote omitted. Goss v. State, 305 Ga. App. 497 699 SE2d 819 2010. So viewed, the evidence showed that in October 2005, the Bulloch County Sheriff’s Office received information that Thomas Webb was selling cocaine at a local fair. An undercover police officer contacted Webb and arranged to buy cocaine from him. Following his sale of cocaine to the undercover officer, Webb was arrested. Webb agreed to cooperate with the police, and he revealed that an individual known as “Big Man” supplied him with cocaine. Using Webb’s cell phone, the officers called Big Man, gave the phone to Webb, and directed Webb to arrange for the delivery of $200 worth of crack cocaine to a convenience store located near the fairgrounds. The officers overheard Webb’s conversation with Big Man, who agreed to meet Webb at the designated area within ten minutes. The officers then quickly set up a surveillance team in the area of the convenience store.

Blitch v. State

Officers had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the defendant's vehicle based in part on information an informant provided.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report