Matthews v. State

The officer did not illegally prolong the defendant's detention, since the officer asked for consent to search, while still investigating the identity of the teenager in the car with the much older defendant at 3:30 a.m.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Larry Matthews appeals from his conviction for speeding and possession of methamphetamine in violation of OCGA § 16-13-30. Matthews contends that the trial court erred by: 1 denying his motion to suppress; 2 denying his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; and 3 limiting its in camera review of juvenile records to prior adjudications of delinquency. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. 1. Matthews asserts the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress because a police officer “illegally expanded the scope of the initially valid traffic stop.” In reviewing a trial court’s order on a motion to suppress, we construe the evidence most favorably to uphold the court’s findings and judgment. State v. Brown , 278 Ga. App. 457, 460 629 SE2d 123 2006. The trial court sits as the trier of fact; its findings are akin to a jury verdict and will not be disturbed unless no evidence exists to support them. Id. at 459-460; see also Evans v. State , 262 Ga. App. 712 1 586 SE2d 400 2003. We “cannot, and will not, usurp the authority of the trial judge to consider such factors as demeanor and other credibility-related evidence in reaching its decision.” Citation and punctuation omitted. State v. Lanes , 287 Ga. App. 311, 312 651 SE2d 456 2007.

So viewed, the record shows that a patrol officer stopped Matthews for driving 48 miles per hour on a street with a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour at 3:32 in the morning. The officer approached Matthews’s car and obtained his driver’s license and insurance card. While doing so, he noticed a young female in the front passenger seat “bouncing . . . uncontrollably” with bloodshot eyes, “a very sunk-in face,” and “very rough skin.” Based on her appearance and behavior, the officer asked her for identification. She replied that she did not have any, but provided the officer with a name and date of birth that would have made her 19 years old.

Matthews v. State

The officer did not illegally prolong the defendant's detention, since the officer asked for consent to search, while still investigating the identity of the teenager in the car with the much older defendant at 3:30 a.m.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report