Summary
In Bobo, the defendant claimed that, because the police officer had no constitutional basis to stop the automobile he was driving and detain him to check his driver's license, the trial court should have granted his motion to exclude the officer's testimony that he could not produce a license.
Summary of this case from Walker v. StateOpinion
59083.
SUBMITTED JANUARY 10, 1980.
DECIDED FEBRUARY 15, 1980. REHEARING DENIED FEBRUARY 29, 1980.
Revocation of probation. Floyd Superior Court. Before Judge Royal.
Robert S. Ogletree, for appellant.
F. Larry Salmon, District Attorney, for appellee.
Lester Bobo brings this appeal following the revocation of his probation for driving without a license.
"[E]xcept in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. This holding does not preclude the State of Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative. We hold only that persons in automobiles on public roadways may not for that reason alone have their travel and privacy interfered with at the unbridled discretion of police officers." Delaware v. Prouse, ___ U.S. ___ ( 99 SC 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660) (1979).
In the present case, the police officer testified that he was patrolling a residential area to see if he could determine who was vandalizing a house in the area. At approximately 2 a. m., the officer saw a pickup truck with several occupants in it talking to some other people in a vehicle near an intersection. As the officer approached, the vehicles left in different directions and he followed the defendant's truck. After stopping the defendant, the officer learned that the defendant could not produce a driver's license on demand. The officer stated that he observed the vehicle for approximately two minutes before pulling it over, that he did not know the identity of the vehicle or its occupants, that he did not see any mechanical difficulties or failure of the truck nor did he see any traffic rules or regulations violated. He admitted that the only reason for stopping the truck was the reported vandalism in the area and the time of night.
We hold that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to strike the officer's testimony. Defendant was not required to file a pretrial motion to suppress when there was no physical evidence to be introduced into evidence against him; the motion to strike the officer's testimony was sufficient. See Brockington v. State, 152 Ga. App. 11 ( 262 S.E.2d 170) (1979); Goswick v. State, 150 Ga. App. 279 ( 257 S.E.2d 303) (1979).
Judgment reversed. Birdsong and Sognier, JJ., concur.