Pursuant to OCGA § 5-7-1 a 4, the State of Georgia appeals from an order of the Superior Court of Fulton County granting Oliver Edwards’ motion to suppress evidence and dismissing the charges against him. The State contends that the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence based upon the State’s failure to produce the arrest warrant upon which Edwards was arrested and, as a consequence, its failure to prove that, at the time Edwards was arrested, the warrant actually existed. For the following reasons, we reverse. As an initial matter, it is axiomatic that “evidence of guilt which the defendant, directly or indirectly, is compelled to disclose by an unlawful search of his person under an illegal arrest is not admissible in a criminal prosecution.” Footnote omitted. State v. Alexander , 245 Ga. App. 666, 666-667 538 SE2d 550 2000. Under OCGA § 17-5-30 b,1 when considering a motion to suppress evidence based upon an allegedly illegal search and seizure, the trial court “shall receive evidence out of the presence of the jury on any issue of fact necessary to determine the motion; and the burden of proving that the search and seizure were lawful shall be on the State.” Upon review of the grant or denial of a motion to suppress, we must construe the record to support the trial court’s findings and judgment. Findings on credibility and conflicting evidence must be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous. In addition, the trial court is the trier of fact, and its findings, being analogous to a jury verdict, will not be disturbed so long as some evidence supports them. Citation omitted. Buchanan v. State , 259 Ga. App. 272, 274 576 SE2d 556 2002.
So viewed, the evidence in the record shows the following facts. On the evening of January 1, 2005, two City of Atlanta police officers went to a house at 115 Honeycut Street to investigate a 911 “hang-up” call. As they walked toward the house, the officers saw Edwards walk out of the front door, down the stairs, and toward them on the sidewalk. The officers decided to stop Edwards and ask him if anything was wrong inside the house and to establish his connection, if any, to the 911 call. The officers asked Edwards for identification, and while one officer stayed with Edwards, the other officer knocked on the door of the house. When no one answered the door, Edwards called someone on his cell phone and, shortly thereafter, a woman answered the door. After speaking with the woman, the officer concluded that no one was injured or in immediate danger inside the house.
