GA: Occupants of a “drug house” who denied connection to it had no standing against landlord’s consent

The landlord of a rented house came by to check on it, and he saw three cars he did not recognize parked outside, broken windows, and a security door that he did not put there. He knocked on the door, announcing that he was “property management” but nobody came out. He parked nearby and watched. A woman who was not the tenant came out who he talked to and she denied any knowledge of anything going on there. The landlord could smell burnt marijuana. He called the police who came, and the landlord entered with the police. Inside, three men were found, one sleeping, and everybody denied living there or any connection to the property. Drugs and firearms were in plain view. The defendants had no standing to contest the search of a common “drug house,” so the trial court’s suppression order of the house is reversed. Defendant’s car was impounded and inventoried and drugs were there, too. That suppression order is affirmed. State v. Carter, 305 Ga. App. 814, 701 S.E.2d 209 (2010):

Here, the defendants failed to demonstrate that they had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the house. White told the officers that the house belonged to his girlfriend, but there was no evidence that his girlfriend was Smith, the woman who rented the house. There was no evidence regarding how long he and the other two defendants had been at the house, that the renter had authorized them to be there, or that they were overnight guests. The house, which police described as a “drug house,” contained very little furniture, including a small couch, a kitchen table, a large television, an air mattress, and a PlayStation game console. The police found no clothing or other indication that a woman lived there, and although they found men’s clothing, there was no evidence that it belonged to any of the defendants. Based on the record, we conclude that the defendants failed to demonstrate that they had standing to contest the search, and therefore, the trial court erred by granting the defendants’ motion to suppress the evidence found in the house.

Officers had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant for alleged trespassing when he was seen on posted property. When stopped he was asked where he lived, which was somewhere else, and he could provide no justification for being there. During the emptying of pockets, he became evasive about the watch pocket, and he was detained. On the totality, it was with justification. Jones v. State, 194 Md. App. 110, 3 A.3d 465 (2010).*