Varriano v. State

The driver's general consent to search the entire vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger extended to closed containers or bags within the passenger compartment.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

After a bench trial, Joseph Patrick Varriano was convicted of possession of oxycodone. He appeals from the judgment of conviction, asserting as his sole enumeration of error that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress contraband found in a consent search of the vehicle in which he was a passenger. The evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the owner of the vehicle gave consent to a search of the entire vehicle, including closed containers and packages. We therefore affirm. We must apply three principles when reviewing a trial court’s order on a motion to suppress evidence: First, the 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, punctuation, and footnote omitted. State v. Hester , 268 Ga. App. 501, 502 602 SE2d 271 2004. And on appeal, this court may consider testimony from the trial of the case as well as testimony presented on the motion to suppress. Postell v. State , 279 Ga. App. 275, 276 1 630 SE2d 867 2006.

With these principles in mind, the evidence shows that police officers stopped a vehicle in which Varriano was the front seat passenger; a third person was in the rear seat. One of the officers asked the driver for permission to search his vehicle, and the driver consented. On further questioning, the officer specified that he asked “for consent to search the entire vehicle” and that he “asked them if they had any weapons or drugs in the vehicle or anything illegal.”

Varriano v. State

The driver's general consent to search the entire vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger extended to closed containers or bags within the passenger compartment.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report