Baxter v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Butler v. State

    285 S.E.2d 610 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 4 times

    The police officer had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the trunk of Price's car when he saw Price place the one pound bag of marijuana therein after the officer had determined it was marijuana. Williams v. State, 150 Ga. App. 852 (1) ( 258 S.E.2d 659); Stoker v. State, 153 Ga. App. 871, 872-873 ( 267 S.E.2d 295); Baxter v. State, 154 Ga. App. 861 (1) ( 270 S.E.2d 71). The fact that the defendants were under arrest and in handcuffs nearby does not require a different result when probable cause to search has been established. Phillips v. State, 233 Ga. 800, 802-803 ( 213 S.E.2d 664). This enumeration is without merit.

  2. Respress v. State

    299 S.E.2d 178 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983)

    After its seizure it was sealed and taken in for criminal analysis. If a police officer is in a place where he has the right to be and observes contraband he is entitled to make an arrest and seize the contraband. Kiriaze v. State, 147 Ga. App. 832 (3) ( 250 S.E.2d 568); Baxter v. State, 154 Ga. App. 861 (1) ( 270 S.E.2d 71); State v. Brown, 158 Ga. App. 312, 314 ( 279 S.E.2d 755). Clearly, there was probable cause for the seizure of the marijuana observed in the automobile when the door was opened and a light came on displaying the marijuana in plain view. See Busby v. State, 155 Ga. App. 780, 781 ( 272 S.E.2d 750). Compare Williams v. State, 157 Ga. App. 476, 480 ( 277 S.E.2d 923). With reference to the admission of the exhibits of marijuana, defendant contends that courts and juries are not bound to believe testimony incredible, impossible or inherently improbable, even if such testimony is given under oath, citing Simmons v. State, 99 Ga. 699, 703 ( 27 S.E. 755); Oakes v. State, 201 Ga. 365, 374 ( 39 S.E.2d 866); Merritt v. State, 190 Ga. 81, 87 ( 8 S.E.2d 386). The basis for excluding the evidence under the motion to suppress is that the police officer's testimony was simply incredible, and therefore, contrary to the law and the minimum standards for the plain view doctrine.