Wilson v. State

A vehicle search after the defendant's arrest based on his consent before arrest was valid because the officers did not induce the defendant's consent to search by deception or threat, and no evidence showed that the defendant withdrew his consent to search after his arrest.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

After a bench trial ending in a conviction for theft, DUI, drug possession, and other offenses, Jerry Lee Wilson appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We find no error and affirm. On review of the denial of a motion to suppress, we consider all the evidence of record, including evidence introduced at trial. Jackson v. State , 280 Ga. App. 716 634 SE2d 846 2006. Where the evidence at a hearing on a motion to suppress is uncontroverted and no question of credibility is presented, we review the trial court’s application of the law to these undisputed facts de novo. Vansant v. State , 264 Ga. 319, 320 1 443 SE2d 474 1994. As to questions of fact and credibility, however, we construe the evidence in favor of the trial court’s findings and judgment, which must be accepted unless clearly erroneous. Tate v. State , 264 Ga. 53, 54 1 440 SE2d 646 1994.

So viewed, the record shows that on October 22, 2009, police pulled Wilson over for a number of traffic violations, including three non-working lights and three failures to maintain lane, including crossing the center line for up to five seconds. Wilson was driving the car, and he had one passenger. In the backseat behind the driver’s seat, the lead officer noticed a grocery basket bearing the name “Food Lion.” When the officer asked Wilson for his wallet, he noticed that Wilson took an unusually long time to retrieve it and that Wilson’s droopy eyes and slurred speech might be the result of being under the influence of drugs Wilson did not smell of alcohol.

Wilson v. State

A vehicle search after the defendant's arrest based on his consent before arrest was valid because the officers did not induce the defendant's consent to search by deception or threat, and no evidence showed that the defendant withdrew his consent to search after his arrest.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report