Damian Ramsey appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence of marijuana discovered during a pat-down search of his person after the traffic stop of a vehicle in which he was riding. The trial court granted Ramsey a certificate of immediate review, and this Court granted his application for interlocutory appeal. We now affirm for the following reasons. While the trial court’s findings as to disputed facts in a ruling on a motion to suppress will be reviewed to determine whether the ruling was clearly erroneous, where the evidence is uncontroverted and no question regarding the credibility of witnesses is presented, the trial court’s application of the law to undisputed facts is subject to de novo appellate review.1 Here, the only witness to testify at the suppression hearing was Corporal Jason Smith of the Twiggs County Sheriff’s Department. According to Smith’s testimony, he was patrolling a section of I-16 when he noticed a vehicle with what appeared to be illegally tinted windows. Upon stopping the car, Smith “made contact with the driver through the passenger side window and advised him about the reason why I had pulled him over.” Smith immediately “detected a strong odor of burning marijuana.” He asked the driver, who is not a party to this appeal, to exit and proceed to the rear of the vehicle, where Smith handcuffed the driver for safety purposes. The driver explained that “they had smoked marijuana in the vehicle earlier that day,” and thereafter, Smith called his partner to assist with the stop. Smith then testified that upon his partner’s arrival, I got the Ramsey out of the vehicle. He got the back seat passenger out of the vehicle, and we patted them down for weapons, at which time I felt a bulge in his watch pocket, if you’re familiar with what a watch pocket is. It’s most of the time on your right side above your right pocket. . . . It’s a little, small pocket. I felt a bulge in it. A lot of time when we feel a bulge . . . any time during a stop like this particular one with the odor of narcotic coming from the vehicle, there’s been several occasions where I’ve found that folks that use narcotics, that’s where they place it is in this watch pocket. I had reasonable suspicion to believe that this was marijuana that he had in this watch pocket. . . . As I reached in the pocket to pull it out, it was a clear baggy containing marijuana. At this time, the passenger was placed under arrest. Smith testified that the back passenger was also arrested because “he was unfamiliar whether he was a convicted felon or not. The driver had stated to me during my interview with him that there was a handgun locked up in the glove box.”
On cross examination, Smith testified that he never located any drug paraphernalia or marijuana cigarettes, and he could not say where the odor of burning marijuana had been emanating from other than “inside of the car.” Officer Smith also testified that he had placed the driver in handcuffs prior to learning that there was a handgun in the vehicle. Smith explained that placing an individual in handcuffs is “something . . . I’ve always done. My sergeant has always done it. I’ve always done it. Any time there’s an odor of a narcotic in the vehicle, I immediately take them out of the car and place them in handcuffs and call for backup.” Smith testified that he did not read the driver his Miranda 2 rights prior to placing him in handcuffs or questioning him.
