Chang v. State

Under the totality of the circumstances, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to suppress drug evidence found in a back-up patrol car where the defendant was sitting during a valid traffic stop.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a bench trial, the Superior Court of Gwinnett County convicted Kum Su Chang of possession of cocaine in violation of OCGA § 16-13-30 a. Chang appeals, contending the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence obtained at a traffic stop. Finding no error, we affirm. In reviewing a trial court’s decision on a motion to suppress, we construe the evidence most favorably to uphold the findings and judgment of the trial court and adopt the court’s findings on disputed facts and witness credibility unless they are clearly erroneous. Tucker v. State , 261 Ga. App. 567 583 SE2d 233 2003. But “where the evidence is uncontroverted and no question regarding the credibility of witnesses is presented, the trial court’s application of law to undisputed facts is subject to de novo appellate review.” Citations omitted. Vansant v. State, 264 Ga. 319, 320 1 443 SE2d 474 1994. We are mindful that “the exclusion of evidence is an extreme sanction and one not favored in the law.” Citation omitted. Tew v. State, 246 Ga. App. 270, 2721, 539 SE2d 579 2000.

The trial court denied Chang’s motion to suppress evidence of cocaine found in a patrol car where Chang had been sitting, based on the following undisputed facts. At approximately 9:20 p.m. on May 24, 2003, a police officer pulled over a pickup truck being operated without a working tag light. Chang was a passenger in the truck. When asked to produce his license, the truck’s driver told the officer he did not have it with him. While he investigated the driver’s identity, the officer asked the driver to step out of the truck and to sit in the back of the patrol car. While frisking the driver for weapons before putting him in the patrol car, the officer observed that the driver was wearing an ankle bracelet indicating he was under house arrest. The officer then obtained the driver’s consent to search the truck.

Chang v. State

Under the totality of the circumstances, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion to suppress drug evidence found in a back-up patrol car where the defendant was sitting during a valid traffic stop.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report