☢ test - Í

reasonable. [Cit.] He had seen Silva acting suspiciously to conceal an object, and Silva then gave an explanation that the officer found implausible, given the recklessness with which Silva changed lanes. The officer did not plan to place Silva in custody based upon any traffic violation, and thus knew Silva would be returning to his car, with the unknown and potentially dangerous item under the front seat. In such circumstances, a reasonably prudent officer would have concerns for his safety, and the officer in this case acted appropriately. An officer who has detained an occupant of a motor vehicle may conduct a search founded on the reasonable belief, based on articulable facts and rational inferences, that the occupant may gain immediate control of a weapon. State v. Jarrells, 207 Ga.App. 192, 427 S.E.2d 568 (1993). See United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-418, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981) (what constitutes articulable facts and ‘founded suspicions’ is judged by the totality of the circumstances). The fact that Silva was outside his car, standing by the officer’s vehicle, when the search was conducted does not change the matter; a suspect re-entering his car after an investigative detention will have access to any weapon therein,” citing Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1051-1052, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983). Accord, Kennedy v. State , 298 Ga.App. 372, 680 S.E.2d 478 (June 16, 2009). State v. Selph, 261 Ga.App. 541, 583 S.E.2d 212 (June 5, 2003). Police found marijuana in car during consensual search. Both occupants of car were arrested, and officers then searched rest of vehicle, including passenger’s backpack, where more contraband was found. Passenger challenges search of backpack. Held, officers were authorized to search backpack. “Passengers, no less than drivers, possess a reduced expectation of privacy with regard to the property that they transport in cars.” Automobile exception extends to passengers’ belongings no less than other contents of cars. Based on Wyoming v. Houghton (April 5, 1999), below. Compare to Valle (November 2, 2006), above (passenger lacked standing to object to search garbage bag in trunk, although officers knew it belonged to him). Blance v. State, 261 Ga.App. 224, 582 S.E.2d 191 (May 12, 2003). Totality of circumstances showed officers had probable cause to detain defendant’s vehicle to search for purse stolen from restaurant customer: “Blance’s car was moving out of the parking lot when stopped. The car had out-of-state license plates, leading the officers to believe that the contraband, if not the car, would be impossible to find if they waited. Several witnesses had informed the officers that they saw a purse matching the description of that of the victim in the possession of one of Blance’s sons, who left the restaurant with the purse and returned without it… The restaurant had been searched without success, and the officers noted a large plastic bag in the back of Blance’s car.” State v. Lejeune, 276 Ga. 179, 576 S.E.2d 888 (February 10, 2003). “There is an automobile exception to the search warrant requirement, not an exemption. Otherwise, the Supreme Court of the United States would have held that the police would not, under any circumstances, need to obtain a search warrant for an automobile, provided they had probably cause for the search.... ‘When a vehicle is being used on the highways, or if it is readily capable of such use and is found stationary in a place not regularly used for residential purposes – temporary or otherwise – the two justifications for the vehicle exception come into play.’ [ quoting California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 392-93, 105 S.Ct. 2066, 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985)]... We conclude that the automobile exception does not apply where, as here, the suspect’s car was legally parked in his residential parking space, the suspect and his only alleged cohort were not in the vehicle or near it and did not have access to it, and the police seized the automobile without a warrant, placed it on a wrecker and hauled it away to be searched at a later time.” Accord, State v. Massa , 273 Ga.App. 596, 615 S.E.2d 652 (June 9, 2005) (trial court properly suppressed evidence; officer could not enter defendant’s unattended locked car, parked on side of dirt road, even though he testified he could see small amount of marijuana in plain view, where no evidence vehicle “was likely to be moved in immediate future.”) Distinguished, Sarden (August 17, 2010), above. State v. Bell, 259 Ga.App. 328, 577 S.E.2d 39 (January 29, 2003). Trial court did not err in finding that search of defendant’s vehicle was not incident to arrest. Arrest was for being in possession of open container of alcoholic beverage at liquor store, in violation of city ordinance. Arrest was not related to operation of vehicle, and defendant had already exited vehicle and entered store when approached by officer and at time of arrest. No officer safety issue was shown. While search of vehicle may be reasonable incident to arrest where defendant was recent occupant thereof, “a review of the cases asserting this principle shows that they involve searches conducted (1) after the arrestee was removed from an automobile and secured by police in a police car; (2) after a violation of the law occurred in connection with the automobile; or (3) to ensure an officer’s safety. We could locate no cases where a search was determined to be reasonable under the facts presented here.” Search was, instead, an inventory search, and results were properly suppressed: car was lawfully parked on private property, and defendant did not request impound nor was he given opportunity to make private arrangements. Conflicts with Thornton v. United States (May 24, 2004), above?Distinguished, Ahmad v. State , 312