State v. Nichols, 160 Ga. App. 386 ( 287 SE2d 53) (1981). See Sirmans v. State, 244 Ga. App. 252, 254-255 (2) (b) ( 534 SE2d 862) (2000) (officer's observations of mistreated animals from public roadway did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights); Galloway v. State, 178 Ga. App. 31, 34 ( 342 SE2d 473) (1986) (officer's observations made while on driveway did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights since officer had taken "the same route as would any guest, deliveryman, postal employee, or other caller") (citation and punctuation omitted). These initial observations constituted "a lawful[,] nonsearch plain view situation" supporting a finding of probable cause to suspect that the crime of cruelty to animals was being committed on Morgan's property. (Punctuation and footnote omitted.)
See State v. Nichols, 160 Ga. App. 386 ( 287 S.E.2d 53). See also Galloway v. State, 178 Ga. App. 31, 34 ( 342 S.E.2d 473). When a police officer makes a "valid intrusion" upon property and seizes contraband in plain view, "there is in effect no search at all."
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Galloway v. State, 178 Ga.App. 31, 34 ( 342 SE2d 473) (1986). Thus the officer's observations made while in the driveway did not violate Peeler's Fourth Amendment rights since the officer had taken "the same route as would any guest, deliveryman, postal employee, or other caller."
Once the officers had seen the truck matching the victim's description, they had the right to enter the open structure containing it, since they reasonably believed that the truck, the damage to it, and the pellet food in and around it were all connected to the crime they were investigating. Finally, since Phillips had no legitimate expectation of privacy concerning either the truck's exterior or that portion of it "which [could] be viewed from outside the vehicle by either inquisitive passersby or diligent police officers," the officers here had the right to record what they saw on and around the truck by photographic means. See id. at 250 (marijuana patch at least 30 feet but no more than 30 yards from house is not within curtilage); Galloway v. State, 178 Ga. App. 31, 34-35 ( 342 SE2d 473) (1986) (police may seize gun seen through window of van parked on defendant's property).Galbreath, supra, 213 Ga. App. at 82 (police may seize marijuana plants found in plain sight behind trailer); see also Hood v. State, 229 Ga. 435 ( 192 SE2d 154) (1972) (police could search getaway car fitting description given).
Brown's authority to approach the house, therefore, did not justify his observation through the window. Compare Galloway v. State, 178 Ga. App. 31, 34 ( 342 S.E.2d 473) (1986) (officer did not violate Fourth Amendment by looking in window of van parked in driveway along route any visitor would follow to front door); Nichols, supra (officer saw contraband in plain view while walking along normal route to front door of residence). See O'Bryant, supra at 863-864 (officers not authorized to "veer from the route any other callers would have taken to look into the [defendant's] truck," which was parked on the defendant's property).
Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the search of Duckett's car satisfied the requirements of the plain view exception. Galloway v. State, 178 Ga. App. 31, 34-35 ( 342 S.E.2d 473) (1986). 2.
[Cit.]" Galloway v. State, 178 Ga. App. 31, 34 ( 342 S.E.2d 473) (1986). "And it holds true whether the object seized is spied with the aid of a flashlight or the naked eye. [Cits.
Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 739-740 ( 103 S. Ct. 1535, 75 L.E.2d 502) (1983); United States v. Dunn, supra at 304-305. See also Galloway v. State, 178 Ga. App. 31, 35 ( 342 S.E.2d 473) (1986). One cannot claim that cover of darkness precludes seeing what daylight would expose to plain view.
(Cits.)Galloway v. State, 178 Ga. App. 31, 33-34 ( 342 S.E.2d 473) (1986). Here, the State, which bore the burden of showing that the search was lawful, failed to prove that the investigator was at a place he was entitled to be.
Upon discovering the car, the officer observed the keys in the ignition in plain view by shining his flashlight through the car window. Since the officer violated no Fourth Amendment rights in establishing his vantage point, he was entitled to use his flashlight to observe any incriminating evidence in plain view. Galloway v. State, 178 Ga. App. 31, 32-34 ( 342 S.E.2d 473) (1986). 4. Parker contends the trial court committed reversible error by improperly commenting on the evidence during the State's closing argument.