Dover v. State

The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence found during an inventory search as the police officer reasonably decided to impound the vehicle, despite the co-defendant's offer to have someone walk over and drive the vehicle away, because both defendants were unlicensed drivers, the vehicle was uninsured, and the vehicle was stopped in a gravel area beside a private business.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a jury trial, Daniel Dover was convicted of possession of methamphetamine,1 driving with a suspended license,2 operating a motor vehicle without proof of insurance,3 and driving without a seatbelt.4 He appeals following the denial of his motion for new trial, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress and by denying his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on the basis that the evidence presented at trial failed to exclude all reasonable hypotheses other than his possession of the methamphetamine.5 For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Viewed in favor of the verdict,6 Georgia State Trooper Matt Sowell observed on Georgia Highway 1 a motor vehicle in which the driver, later identified as Dover, was not wearing a seatbelt. Officer Sowell stopped the vehicle, in which Dover, Dalmous Holbrook, and Holbrook’s four-year-old child were riding. Upon checking Dover’s license and registration, the officer determined that Dover’s license was suspended, the vehicle registration was suspended, and the vehicle was uninsured. Officer Sowell told Holbrook that he and his child could leave as Sowell had no reason to hold them at the time.

Officer Sowell impounded the vehicle because it could not be driven lawfully without insurance, and Holbrook was not properly licensed to operate a motor vehicle. The videotape of the stop shows that Holbrook offered to have someone from his father’s business, which was down the road, come remove the vehicle; although in the transcript of the motion to suppress this is discussed as Holbrook offering to have the vehicle towed, in the videotape, Holbrook stated that someone could walk over and move it. Officer Sowell declined Holbrook’s offer, explaining that the lack of insurance on the car prevented anyone from operating the vehicle. Officer Sowell discussed removal of the vehicle with Dover, who expresses a preference for “Gill’s” to tow the vehicle.

Dover v. State

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report