GA: Where state constitution or statute are recognized to be susceptible to a broader interpretation than the 4A, appellant has to show why or how; otherwise, it’s waived

Defendant also relies on the state constitution as well as statute in addition to the Fourth Amendment. “However, Hinkson makes no argument that state law provides a rule substantively different as applied to this case from that of the Fourth Amendment. This case therefore presents no occasion for consideration of whether [the state constitution] differs from the Fourth Amendment in some circumstances. See Olevik v. State, 302 Ga. 228, 234 (2) (b) n.3 (806 SE2d 505) (2017) (noting that the United States Supreme Court’s construction of the Fourth Amendment does not bind our construction of Paragraph XIII, and that any independent interpretation of Paragraph XIII must be grounded in the text, context, and history of the Georgia provision).” Hinkson v. State, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 753 (Oct. 19, 2020).

A search warrant for defendant’s vehicle was not stale where it was issued two days after the vehicle was in impound and the police believed defendant drove it from the scene of the murder. It was highly likely evidence of the murder would still be there. Rawls v. State, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 754 (Oct. 19, 2020).*

Defendant filed a motion to suppress the search of his cell phone, but it was never pursued before trial. It is thus subject to plain error review, and, on this record, any error isn’t plain. Goins v. State, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 745 (Oct. 19, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Staleness, State constitution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.