The State appeals from the trial court’s grant of Rasheed Robinson’s motion to suppress. Because Robinson had no standing to challenge the search that resulted in the discovery of contraband, we reverse. When we review a trial court’s decision on a motion to suppress, the evidence is construed most favorably to uphold the findings and judgment of the trial court; the trial court’s findings on disputed facts and credibility are adopted unless they are clearly erroneous, and will not be disturbed if there is any evidence to support them. Citations and punctuation omitted. Lewis v. State , 233 Ga. App. 560 1 504 SE2d 732 1998. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to support the trial court’s findings, the record reveals that an officer conducting routine surveillance near an apartment complex noticed two men pacing back and forth on the upstairs breezeway of one of the buildings. The officer was suspicious because drugs were frequently sold from the apartment building and “runners” often stood in the breezeway to take drugs down to buyers on the street. He radioed for a second uniformed officer to investigate. When the second officer approached, he came upon three men and noticed the smell of burnt marijuana. He asked the men for identification and asked if he could talk to them and pat them down. They consented. When the officer performed a pat down on the first man he found a bag full of smaller plastic bags. The officer noticed that this same man put a hamburger he was eating into a McDonald’s bag while the officer performed a pat down on the second man. The third man, Robinson, “picked up the McDonald’s bag and crushed it to his chest.” When the officer observed Robinson “move the bag to his back,” he asked Robinson if he could look inside the bag, and Robinson handed it over. Inside the bag the officer found a partially eaten hamburger and small individual bags of marijuana. Police arrested both Robinson and the companion on whose person the small plastic bags were found.
Charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Robinson filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the search of the McDonald’s bag. The trial court granted Robinson’s motion, concluding that 1 “police had no particularized objective basis for seizing the men,” 2 the officer had no reason to pat down the first man and did so as a pretext to search for drugs, and 3 Robinson did not voluntarily consent to the search.
