State v. Howell

5 Citing cases

  1. Welch v. State

    457 S.E.2d 829 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 3 times

    " "As for the substance identified as cocaine, [Welch] affirmatively abandoned it by throwing it [to the ground] as the [police chief] approached, thereby placing it within plain view. . . ." State v. Howell, 180 Ga. App. 449, 451 ( 349 S.E.2d 476) (1986). See also Anderson v. State, 209 Ga. App. 676 ( 434 S.E.2d 122) (1993).

  2. Evans v. State

    386 S.E.2d 712 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 5 times

    6. Since a defendant has no Fourth Amendment rights with respect to discarded or abandoned property, the trial court did not err in denying the appellants' motion to suppress as evidence the stolen items which they had thrown into the weeds. See State v. Howell, 180 Ga. App. 449, 451 ( 349 S.E.2d 476) (1986); Golden v. State, 163 Ga. App. 519 ( 295 S.E.2d 333) (1982). 7. Probable cause clearly existed for the appellants' arrest.

  3. Wilder v. State

    386 S.E.2d 685 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 7 times
    In Wilder v. State, 192 Ga. App. 891 (386 S.E.2d 685) (1989), a vehicle was stopped because it had no visible valid license plate but only a rental agency paper drive-out tag.

    "Neither abandoned property, nor items in plain view of law enforcement officers who (as in the instant case) are where they have a right to be, can be the subject of a motion to suppress when the abandonment of the evidence and the simultaneous placing of it in plain view occurs during the course of a legal stop. [Cits.]" State v. Howell, 180 Ga. App. 449, 451 ( 349 S.E.2d 476) (1986). It follows that the motion to suppress was properly denied.

  4. Ramsey v. State

    183 Ga. App. 48 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 10 times

    In order to determine whether property has been abandoned, we must ask: Did the complaining party retain a legitimate expectation of privacy in the article allegedly abandoned? [Cit.]" Williams v. State, 171 Ga. App. 546, 547 ( 320 S.E.2d 398) (1984); see also State v. Howell, 180 Ga. App. 449 ( 349 S.E.2d 476) (1986). In the case at bar, it is clear to us that defendant, who denied knowing the briefcase was in the car and stated he did not own it, retained no reasonable expectation of privacy in the property seized.

  5. Brown v. State

    181 Ga. App. 768 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 22 times

    Although the State has not argued that the defendant abandoned his shirt when he removed it, we have examined the record to determine if the warrantless search was authorized under this theory and have concluded that the record fails to support such a finding. Cf. State v. Howell, 180 Ga. App. 449 ( 349 S.E.2d 476) (1986). 2.