This case regards the trial court’s grant of Ashaunte Miller’s motion to suppress evidence of cocaine and a firearm found in his possession after he was stopped by Officer James Williams. In State v. Miller , 300 Ga. App. 55 684 SE2d 80 2009, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of the motion to suppress after determining that a de novo standard of review applied to the State’s appeal. We granted certiorari to consider the propriety of this holding. For the reasons set forth below, we find that the Court of Appeals erred by applying a de novo standard of review, and, as a result, we reverse. 1. In Tate v. State , 264 Ga. 53 440 SE2d 646 1994, we discussed three fundamental principles which must be followed when conducting an appellate review of a motion to suppress. First, when a motion to suppress is heard by the trial judge, that 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. On numerous occasions the appellate courts of this state have invoked these three principles to affirm trial court rulings that upheld the validity of seizures. These same principles of law apply equally to trial court rulings that are in favor of the defendant and their application to this trial court’s order would demand that the court’s order be affirmed. Citations, punctuation, and footnote omitted. Id. at 54 1.1
To properly follow the first principle, we must focus on the facts found by the trial court in its order , as the trial court sits as the trier of fact. Those facts are as follows: The evidence shows that on July 30, 2008, a team of officers from the Savannah-Metropolitan Police Department’s TRAP unit were driving around the westside of Savannah on a general patrol of the area for drug activity. The officers were traveling along the 600 block of west 34th Street when they saw a group of six or seven black men standing near a vehicle in a vacant lot. One of the men was applying tinting to the car’s window. The car had no visible license plate. The officers, who wore vests identifying them as law enforcement, stopped at the scene, exited their van and approached the group of men. Miller, who was part of the group standing near the vehicle, walked away from the scene and headed in the direction of his mother’s home, which was next to the vacant lot. Officer James Williams followed Miller and ordered him not to move. Officer Williams eventually apprehended Miller and wrestled him to the ground. After Officer Williams secured Miller on the ground, he observed a gun sticking from Miller’s pocket. Officer Williams later conducted a pat-down and found a plastic bag containing a substance, confirmed by subsequent crime lab tests to be cocaine, in Miller’s pants pocket. Second, the trial court’s decision with regard to questions of fact and credibility must be accepted unless clearly erroneous. Based on the trial court’s order, it is evident that the trial court questioned the credibility of the bases provided for the stop by Officer Williams. In fact, just before holding that Officer Williams stopped Miller based on a “mere hunch” and only “general suspicion,” the trial court explicitly stated: “In addition, the Court notes that although Officer Williams testified recently at the suppression hearing that these facts were the basis for the stop, he did not mention the window tinting or the missing license plate in the incident report he filed or during his testimony at defendant’s preliminary hearing.” Later in its order, the trial court again explicitly addresses the unreliability of Officer Williams’ testimony. The trial court’s order states:
