Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Buell v. State

254 Ga. App. 456 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Buell v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Gonzalez v. State

    657 S.E.2d 617 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 8 times

    Giacini, supra, 281 Ga. App. at 429 (1). See also Hobbs, supra, 260 Ga. App. at 116-117 (1); Ross v. State, 257 Ga. App. 541, 542 (1) ( 573 SE2d 402) (2002); Buell v. State, 254 Ga. App. 456, 457 ( 562 SE2d 526) (2002). In light of the foregoing, we find that the roadblock at issue was legal, and we affirm the trial court's order denying Gonzalez's motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of that roadblock.

  2. Kellogg v. State

    288 Ga. App. 265 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 12 times
    Finding probable cause for DUI arrest from the person's admission to drinking, among other evidence

    McCray v. State, 268 Ga. App. 84 ( 601 SE2d 452) (2004).Buell v. State, 254 Ga. App. 456, 457 ( 562 SE2d 526) (2002).Hobbs v. State, 260 Ga. App. 115, 116 (1) ( 579 SE2d 50) (2003).

  3. Harwood v. State

    262 Ga. App. 818 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 17 times
    Holding roadblock was lawful when police cars were parked on either side of the street with flashing blue lights, and police officers present were in uniform, some with reflective vests

    This testimony established that the roadblock was implemented by a supervisory officer for a proper purpose. See Hobbs v. State, 260 Ga. App. 115, 116-117(1) ( 579 S.E.2d 50) (2003) (evidence that officer who ordered roadblock was a supervisory officer satisfied first criterion for evaluating roadblock's constitutionality); Buell v. State, 254 Ga. App. 456, 457 ( 562 S.E.2d 526) (2002) ("checking for safety violations" was permissible purpose for roadblock). Defendants argue, however, that there was no competent evidence that Tammaro was authorized to order the roadblock.

  4. Mitchell v. State

    321 Ga. App. 656 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013)

    Further, even if the roadblock was implemented “for safety reasons and for sobriety purposes,” as indicated by the captain's testimony, those were also lawful primary purposes. See Kellogg, supra at 267(1)(a), 653 S.E.2d 841;Buell v. State, 254 Ga.App. 456, 457, 562 S.E.2d 526 (2002) (purpose of roadblock was not overly broad where it was conducted to check for driver's licenses, proof of insurance, driver impairment, seat belt and child restraint use, defective equipment, and expired tags). Thus, there was evidence to support the trial court's finding that the roadblock was conducted for a legitimate purpose, and the court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.

  5. Clark v. State

    318 Ga. App. 873 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 2 times
    Evaluating “circumstances of daylight search” and rejecting argument that “the Fourth Amendment requires that roadblocks be identified with orange cones and that officers working there wear reflective hats.”

    (Citations and footnotes omitted.) Id. at 267(1)(a), 653 S.E.2d 841; Buell v. State, 254 Ga.App. 456, 457, 562 S.E.2d 526 (2002) (checks for driver's license, proof of insurance, impaired drivers, seat belts, child restraints, defective equipment, and expired tags did not render the roadblock's purposes overbroad). Even assuming that the enforcing troopers misunderstood the nature of the stop, moreover, "the law only requires that some admissible evidence, whether testimonial or written, show that supervisory officers decided to implement the roadblock, decided when and where to implement it, and had a legitimate primary purpose for it."