GA: Unappealed granted suppression order is collateral estoppel to probation revo

In Georgia, when a motion to suppress a search is granted in a criminal case and the state nolle prosses without appealing, that judgment is collateral estoppel to a probation revocation based on the same events, applying the Restatement of Judgments. Thackston v. State, 303 Ga. App. 718, 694 S.E.2d 136 (2010):

The closer question is whether the finality requirement of collateral estoppel was met here, given that the state had the drug charges against Thackston nolle prossed in the criminal case following the grant of the motion to suppress. For the purposes of collateral estoppel, “final judgment” includes “any prior adjudication of an issue in another action that is determined to be sufficiently firm to be accorded conclusive effect.” Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 13 (1982) (hereinafter, “Restatement”). Factors supporting a conclusion that a decision is final for this purpose are “that the parties were fully heard, that the court supported its decision with a reasoned opinion, that the decision was subject to appeal or was in fact reviewed on appeal.” Restatement § 13 cmt. g.

Application of these factors leads us to conclude that the trial court’s decision suppressing the methamphetamine in the criminal case should be considered a final judgment for purposes of collateral estoppel. The parties were fully heard on the motion to suppress in the criminal case. Moreover, it is clear that in granting the motion, the trial court considered the arguments of the parties, expressed its reasons for its decision, and did not consider its decision merely provisional or tentative. Finally, and most notably, the trial court’s grant of the motion to suppress was directly appealable by the state pursuant to OCGA § 5-7-1 (a) (4), yet the state declined to file such an appeal, instead seeking entry of a nolle prosequi on the ground that “[t]here does not appear to be any valid ground to … overturn” the suppression order. Under these circumstances, the trial court’s grant of the motion to suppress in the criminal case was “sufficiently firm to be accorded conclusive effect.” Restatement § 13.