Smith v. State

Pursuant to the grant of an interlocutory appeal, Patrice Smith and Alfred Eugene Caldwell appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motions to suppress. Both Smith and Caldwell were charged with theft by receiving and theft by taking of two computer monitors and two computer keyboards, as well as possession of cocaine and less than an ounce of marijuana. Caldwell also was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and use of a firearm during the commission of a felony. In considering an appeal from denial of a motion to suppress, this Court construes the evidence in favor of the trial court’s ruling, and we review de novo the trial court’s application of the law to undisputed facts. Jones v. State , 259 Ga. App. 849, 850 578 SE2d 562 2003. Absent an abuse of discretion, the trial court’s order on a motion to suppress will not be disturbed. Hatcher v. State , 219 Ga. App. 82, 84 464 SE2d 236 1995.

Smith’s grounds for her motion to suppress were that there was no probable cause or reasonable and articulable suspicion for the stop of her car; that she was held without probable cause; was not properly and timely given her Miranda warnings; and that all evidence regarding the stop, any statements she made after the stop, and any evidence seized should be suppressed as the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Caldwell’s grounds were lack of probable cause for his arrest; no exigent circumstances; the searches were illegal and without his consent; and all evidence obtained as a result of the search was “fruit of the poisonous tree.”