Archive for category: Blog

It is commonly known that driving with a BAC above 0.08 is considered driving under the influence in Georgia. But, the police may still charge you with DUI if your BAC is below 0.08 if they feel that you are less safe to drive than you would have been if you had not consumed alcohol.

O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391 (a)(1) states that “a person shall not drive or be in actual physical control of any moving vehicle while under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it is less safe for the person to drive”. This simply means that you may still be charged, and convicted of, DUI even if your BAC registers at a level below 0.08.

If you have been charged with DUI less safe in the Municipal Court of Atlanta, it is important that you hire an experienced DUI attorney to fight to protect your driver’s license and to prevent the long-term consequences that come with a DUI conviction. The lawyers at W. Scott Smith are experienced with the nuances associated with a DUI case and will work to protect you and resolve your case with the best possible outcome. Call our office at 404-581-0999 for a free consultation.

Imagine waking up one morning to discover that law enforcement knows exactly where you were on a given night, not because they obtained a warrant for your specific phone, but because they swept up location data from every device in a particular area at a particular time. This is not science fiction; it is the reality of geofence warrants issued in Clayton County, an increasingly common investigative tool that raises profound questions about privacy, technology, and the Fourth Amendment.

A geofence warrant is a court order that requires technology companies—most often Google—to sift through historical location data from all devices within a defined geographic boundary (the “geofence”) during a specified time period. Rather than naming a suspect or a particular device, Clayton County prosecutors describe the boundaries of a crime scene or other relevant area on a map and ask for the location “pings” of every smartphone, tablet, or wearable that was present there. The intent is to identify potential suspects whose devices moved into the geofenced area at the relevant time.

On their face, geofence warrants appear to be a powerful tool for locating suspects in serious crimes. However, they come with a significant trade‑off: massive data collection. By design, these warrants scoop up information on innocent people—journalists visiting a protest, bystanders walking through a park, or someone on an errand near the crime scene. Gathering such broad swaths of private data infringes on the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches in Clayton County.

 

The Fourth Amendment guarantees that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Traditional warrants describe a particular person or place with specificity; a geofence warrant, by contrast, asks for every device in a wide area. Courts have struggled to reconcile this tension. In the 2018 Supreme Court decision Carpenter v. United States, the Court held that accessing historical cell‑site location information generally requires a warrant supported by probable cause. Although Carpenter did not directly address geofence warrants, it set the stage for heightened scrutiny of digital‑age searches.

In a typical scenario, a Clayton County investigator investigating a burglary or assault will outline on a digital map the location and time frame of the crime. The warrant is served on a technology company, like Google, which compiles a list of device identifiers—known as “anonymous identifiers”—that pinged the defined area during that window. Law enforcement then reviews metadata such as device movement patterns and, in some cases, supplementary information like Google profile data or Wi‑Fi network connections. From this list, Clayton County investigators narrow down their focus to devices whose behavior suggests involvement, then seek further warrants to unmask the individual owners.

Because geofence warrants collect data indiscriminately, they inevitably sweep in bystanders. Someone who stopped for coffee near the scene, simply drove down the block, or where at home and live in the area can be subjected to scrutiny. This raises difficult questions: Should a person’s lawful presence near a public place be treated as probable cause for police investigation? Does the mere fact of carrying a smartphone turn every citizen into what the courts have begun calling a “digital witness” to crime? These are not idle concerns; the scale of modern data retention means that our digital footprints can be preserved for years, potentially exposing innocent, unknowing, and un-consenting people to legal trouble long after any alleged crime.

 

Defense attorneys have begun to push back by filing motions to suppress evidence obtained through geofence warrants. These challenges typically argue that such warrants are overbroad and violate the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of particularity. Some courts have responded by narrowing the scope of these warrants—limiting them to devices displaying “suspicious” behavior, such as remaining on site during the crime and then rapidly departing. Others have demanded more precise descriptions of suspects or more targeted time frames. Although the law in this area is still evolving, successful suppression motions can force Clayton County prosecutors to either abandon digital leads or gather evidence through more traditional, narrowly tailored means.

 

If you are not under investigation, there are still steps you can take to safeguard your location information. Many smartphones allow you to disable or limit location history—Google’s “Location History” setting, for instance, can be turned off altogether. Using privacy‑minded navigation apps that do not store your data or setting your phone to clear location history automatically can also reduce the volume of data available for a geofence warrant. However, these measures are no panacea: even with location history disabled, apps that require location services (like weather or ride‑share apps) may still generate records. Ultimately, meaningful privacy protections will require a combination of personal vigilance, legislative reform, and judicial oversight.

Geofence warrants sit at the intersection of rapid technological change and constitutional law that has not kept pace. The drive to solve crimes more efficiently must be balanced against the fundamental right to privacy. As public awareness grows and defense attorneys, like us, continue to challenge the breadth of these warrants, jurists and legislators are being forced to confront questions that were unimaginable just a decade ago.

 

For now, if you value your privacy in Clayton County, it pays to understand how geofence warrants work—and to take proactive steps to limit the trails you leave behind. When your digital footprint can be used to cast suspicion on you, your loved ones, friends and neighbors, staying informed becomes not just a matter of privacy, but of personal freedom.

If you or a loved one has been arrested for marijuana trafficking at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL), you’re likely feeling overwhelmed, anxious, and unsure of what comes next. As a criminal defense attorney with 25 years of experience practicing law in Atlanta, Georgia, I’ve handled countless cases just like this. My firm, Peach State Lawyer, specializes in defending individuals facing drug-related charges at the airport, from small amounts like 10 gummies to larger quantities around 50 pounds or more. We understand the stakes are high, and we’re here to guide you through the process. In this post, I’ll outline what typically happens after an arrest, the legal implications under Georgia law, and why securing experienced legal representation immediately is crucial.

The Immediate Aftermath: Arrest and Booking

Arrests for marijuana trafficking at ATL often occur during routine security screenings, baggage checks, or targeted interdictions by the Atlanta Police Department (APD), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). These agencies patrol the airport aggressively due to its status as one of the busiest in the world, and they use advanced detection methods like K-9 units and X-ray scanners to identify suspected contraband.

Once arrested, you’ll be taken into custody on-site and transported to the Clayton County Jail for booking. This process includes fingerprinting, photographing, and an initial intake where personal belongings are confiscated. Expect to spend at least a few hours—or potentially days—in holding while paperwork is processed. At the jail, you’ll have access to basic necessities, but conditions can be stressful. Inmates can submit a phone list of up to 10 numbers for calls, and visitation is available on weekends and holidays from 9:00 AM to 10:15 AM. Family members can send money via money order (only if they’re on your approved visitor list), but it’s wise to avoid discussing case details over jail phones, as calls may be recorded.

A bond hearing usually occurs within 48 hours of arrest, where a judge determines if you can be released pending trial. Bond amounts vary based on the quantity of marijuana, your criminal history, and flight risk, but for trafficking charges, they can be substantial—often tens of thousands of dollars. If bond is granted, a bondsman can help secure your release for a fee (typically 10-15% of the bond amount).  We can assist you through this process.

Understanding the Charges: Marijuana Trafficking in Georgia

Georgia law treats marijuana trafficking seriously, with charges escalating based on the amount involved. Under Georgia Code § 16-13-31(c), trafficking applies when you possess, sell, manufacture, deliver, or bring into the state more than 10 pounds of marijuana. This is a felony offense, distinct from simple possession (under 1 ounce, which is a misdemeanor) or possession with intent to distribute (1 ounce to 10 pounds, also a felony but with lighter penalties).

Penalties are tiered by weight:

– 10 to 2,000 pounds: Mandatory minimum 5 years in prison and a $100,000 fine.

– 2,000 to 10,000 pounds: Mandatory minimum 7 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

– Over 10,000 pounds: Mandatory minimum 15 years in prison and a $1,000,000 fine.

Even smaller amounts, like edibles (e.g., 10 gummies), can lead to possession with intent charges if authorities believe they were intended for distribution, carrying 1 to 10 years in prison. Federal involvement is possible if the case crosses state lines or involves international flights, potentially adding federal charges with even harsher penalties. Additionally, a conviction can result in long-term consequences like loss of driver’s license, professional licenses, or immigration status issues.

The Court Process: From Arraignment to Resolution

Your case will be handled in Clayton County Superior Court, which oversees all felony matters in the area. Here’s a step-by-step overview of what to expect:

1. Arraignment: Within months of arrest, you’ll appear in court to enter a plea (guilty, not guilty, or no contest). This is also when formal charges are read, and bond may be revisited.
2. Discovery and Pre-Trial Motions: Prosecutors from the Clayton County District Attorney’s Office will share evidence, such as lab reports, witness statements, and airport surveillance. Your attorney can file motions to suppress evidence if it was obtained unlawfully (e.g., improper search).
3. Plea Negotiations or Trial: Many cases resolve through plea deals, potentially reducing charges or sentences. If no agreement is reached, the case goes to trial, where a jury decides guilt. For eligible non-violent offenders, Clayton County’s Adult Felony Drug Court offers an alternative: a supervised treatment program that could lead to charge dismissal upon completion. Our firm has been extremely successful in avoiding prison on cases involving marijuana trafficking at the airport.

 

The entire process can take months to over a year, depending on court backlog and case complexity. During this time, you may be required to attend hearings, submit to drug testing, or comply with pre-trial release conditions.

Why You Need a Skilled Defense Attorney Right Away

Navigating this system alone is risky—prosecutors are aggressive, and mistakes early on can jeopardize your defense. An experienced lawyer can:

– Challenge the arrest’s validity (e.g., was the search constitutional?).

– Negotiate for reduced charges or alternative sentencing.

– Represent you at bond hearings to secure release.

– Build a strong case using expert witnesses, like toxicologists, to dispute drug quantities, knowledge of the luggage’s contents or intent.

At Peach State Law firm, our team of eight attorneys has deep knowledge of airport procedures, Georgia drug laws, and Clayton County courts. We’ve successfully defended clients in similar situations, often achieving dismissals, acquittals, or minimized penalties. We know the ins and outs of Atlanta Police Department’s standard operating procedures and how to leverage them in your favor.

Take the Next Step: Contact Us Today

If you or a family member is facing marijuana trafficking charges at ATL, don’t wait—the sooner you act, the better your chances. We’re available 24/7, including weekends, to provide immediate guidance. Call Peach State Lawyer at 404-581-0999 or visit our website at www.peachstatelawyer.com to schedule a confidential consultation. Let us fight for your rights and help you move forward. Your future depends on it.

If you’re caught driving with a suspended license in Forsyth County, Georgia, the consequences can be severe. Georgia law treats this offense seriously, and penalties escalate with each subsequent violation.

According to Georgia Code §40-5-121, the penalties for driving with a suspended or revoked license depend on the number or prior convictions within the past five years:

First Offense punishment:

• No less than 2 days in jail
• A fine of $500 to $1000
• You could also be placed on probation

Second or Third Offense punishment:

• No less than 10 days in jail
• A fine of $1000 to $2500
• You could also be placed on probation

Fourth Offense punishment:

• Considered a felony
• 1 to 5 years in jail
• Fines
• Probation

Driving with a suspended license in Forsyth County, Georgia, is a serious offense with significant legal consequences. If you’re facing charges, consult the qualified lawyers at W. Scott Smith, P.C. to understand your options. Call us at 404-581-0999 for a free consultation.

Imagine waking up one morning to discover that law enforcement knows exactly where you were on a given night, not because they obtained a warrant for your specific phone, but because they swept up location data from every device in a particular area at a particular time. This is not science fiction; it is the reality of geofence warrants issued in Dekalb County, an increasingly common investigative tool that raises profound questions about privacy, technology, and the Fourth Amendment.

A geofence warrant is a court order that requires technology companies—most often Google—to sift through historical location data from all devices within a defined geographic boundary (the “geofence”) during a specified time period. Rather than naming a suspect or a particular device, Dekalb County prosecutors describe the boundaries of a crime scene or other relevant area on a map and ask for the location “pings” of every smartphone, tablet, or wearable that was present there. The intent is to identify potential suspects whose devices moved into the geofenced area at the relevant time.

On their face, geofence warrants appear to be a powerful tool for locating suspects in serious crimes. However, they come with a significant trade‑off: massive data collection. By design, these warrants scoop up information on innocent people—journalists visiting a protest, bystanders walking through a park, or someone on an errand near the crime scene. Gathering such broad swaths of private data infringes on the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches in Dekalb County.

 

The Fourth Amendment guarantees that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Traditional warrants describe a particular person or place with specificity; a geofence warrant, by contrast, asks for every device in a wide area. Courts have struggled to reconcile this tension. In the 2018 Supreme Court decision Carpenter v. United States, the Court held that accessing historical cell‑site location information generally requires a warrant supported by probable cause. Although Carpenter did not directly address geofence warrants, it set the stage for heightened scrutiny of digital‑age searches.

In a typical scenario, a Dekalb County investigator investigating a burglary or assault will outline on a digital map the location and time frame of the crime. The warrant is served on a technology company, like Google, which compiles a list of device identifiers—known as “anonymous identifiers”—that pinged the defined area during that window. Law enforcement then reviews metadata such as device movement patterns and, in some cases, supplementary information like Google profile data or Wi‑Fi network connections. From this list, Dekalb County investigators narrow down their focus to devices whose behavior suggests involvement, then seek further warrants to unmask the individual owners.

Because geofence warrants collect data indiscriminately, they inevitably sweep in bystanders. Someone who stopped for coffee near the scene, simply drove down the block, or where at home and live in the area can be subjected to scrutiny. This raises difficult questions: Should a person’s lawful presence near a public place be treated as probable cause for police investigation? Does the mere fact of carrying a smartphone turn every citizen into what the courts have begun calling a “digital witness” to crime? These are not idle concerns; the scale of modern data retention means that our digital footprints can be preserved for years, potentially exposing innocent, unknowing, and un-consenting people to legal trouble long after any alleged crime.

 

Defense attorneys have begun to push back by filing motions to suppress evidence obtained through geofence warrants. These challenges typically argue that such warrants are overbroad and violate the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of particularity. Some courts have responded by narrowing the scope of these warrants—limiting them to devices displaying “suspicious” behavior, such as remaining on site during the crime and then rapidly departing. Others have demanded more precise descriptions of suspects or more targeted time frames. Although the law in this area is still evolving, successful suppression motions can force Dekalb County prosecutors to either abandon digital leads or gather evidence through more traditional, narrowly tailored means.

 

If you are not under investigation, there are still steps you can take to safeguard your location information. Many smartphones allow you to disable or limit location history—Google’s “Location History” setting, for instance, can be turned off altogether. Using privacy‑minded navigation apps that do not store your data or setting your phone to clear location history automatically can also reduce the volume of data available for a geofence warrant. However, these measures are no panacea: even with location history disabled, apps that require location services (like weather or ride‑share apps) may still generate records. Ultimately, meaningful privacy protections will require a combination of personal vigilance, legislative reform, and judicial oversight.

Geofence warrants sit at the intersection of rapid technological change and constitutional law that has not kept pace. The drive to solve crimes more efficiently must be balanced against the fundamental right to privacy. As public awareness grows and defense attorneys, like us, continue to challenge the breadth of these warrants, jurists and legislators are being forced to confront questions that were unimaginable just a decade ago.

 

For now, if you value your privacy in Dekalb County, it pays to understand how geofence warrants work—and to take proactive steps to limit the trails you leave behind. When your digital footprint can be used to cast suspicion on you, your loved ones, friends and neighbors, staying informed becomes not just a matter of privacy, but of personal freedom.