Young v. State

The arresting officer's brief inquiry into the nature of defendants' trip did not impermissibly expand the scope or duration of their initial traffic stop.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In these companion cases, Frank E. Young, Jr. and Keithney S. Williams appeal from their convictions following a stipulated bench trial on trafficking in marijuana.1 Young and Williams argue that the trial court erred in denying their motions to suppress the drug evidence on the ground that it was unlawfully seized after the arresting officer impermissibly expanded the scope of the initial traffic stop. We disagree and affirm. In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress physical evidence, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s findings and judgment.2 To the extent that the evidence is in conflict, “we will not disturb the lower court’s ruling if there is any evidence to support its findings, and we accept that court’s credibility assessments unless clearly erroneous.”3 We, nonetheless, review de novo the trial court’s application of law to the undisputed facts.4

So viewed, the evidence shows that on June 24, 2007, an officer with the Georgia State Patrol stopped a 1996 Freightliner tractor truck on Interstate 59 after noticing the truck’s cracked windshield. Upon approaching the cab of the truck, the officer observed that the truck’s flatbed was empty and the transport chains were covered in an excessive amount of rust, indicating that they had not been used recently. He further observed two safety infractions, namely low tire tread and improperly secured air hoses. When Williams, the driver, opened the door of the cab, the officer immediately noticed a strong odor of perfume emanating from the interior of the truck. Based upon his training and experience, the officer knew that drug traffickers frequently use air fresheners and other strong fragrances to mask the smell of narcotics, and thus became suspicious.

Young v. State

The arresting officer's brief inquiry into the nature of defendants' trip did not impermissibly expand the scope or duration of their initial traffic stop.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report