Archive for category: Blog

Interacting with police officers can be a stressful and unsettling experience, especially when you’re unsure of your rights. Many individuals, both in Clayton County and across the state of Georgia, often feel confused when questioned by police officers or when the police attempt to search their property or belongings. This uncertainty arises from a lack of knowledge about personal rights during encounters with law enforcement.

Citizens are protected by the Fourth Amendment against unlawful searches and seizures. This blog explains your rights if stopped by police in your vehicle or if an officer attempts to search your body, car, or home without a warrant.

Your Freedom to Refuse a Search Without a Warrant

When a police officer attempts to search you or your property, the first question you should ask is: “Do you have a warrant?” In most cases, police officers are required to have a valid search warrant to conduct a search of your person or property. Without this, any search or seizure could be deemed unlawful, and any items found could potentially be suppressed in court through a motion to suppress filed by the defense.

When Can Police Search You Without a Warrant?

Here are a few circumstances when police officers can conduct a search without a warrant:

1. Search Incident to Arrest

The most common scenario where a search can occur without a warrant is when a person is arrested. This is known as a search incident to arrest. When an individual is arrested, the officer is allowed to search the person to remove any weapons or contraband that may be used to resist arrest or escape. This applies even if a significant amount of time has passed since the arrest or processing, as highlighted in in Barrera-Palamin v. State, 250 Ga. App. 580 (2001).

However, a search cannot happen before an arrest and be used as justification for the arrest itself, as seen in Smith v. Ohio, 494 U.S. 541 (1990).

1. Vehicle Searches

Under both the Georgia Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, police may search a vehicle without a warrant if the driver has been arrested. This is based on the idea that law enforcement has a legitimate need to secure any weapons or evidence that may be in the vehicle. However, if the officer only issues a citation without making an arrest, they cannot search the vehicle. This is made clear in Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998).

1. Abandonment of Property

If you relinquish control or ownership of an item, such as a vehicle, police can search it because you no longer have an expectation of privacy. In Gresham v. State, 204 Ga. App. 540 (1992), it was ruled that if you abandon your property, you lose the right to object to a search.

1. Denial of Ownership

If you deny ownership of an item, such as when you refuse responsibility for an item in your possession, you lose the expectation of privacy over it. Police may search the item without violating your rights. This was affirmed in Deych v. State, 188 Ga. App. 901 (1988).

1. Plain View Doctrine

If police are lawfully present in an area and see evidence of a crime in plain view, they can seize it without a warrant.

1. Exigent Circumstances

In urgent situations, such as when there’s a risk of evidence being destroyed or a suspect fleeing, police can conduct a search without a warrant.

1. Stop and Frisk

If a police officer has reasonable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous, they can stop and frisk the individual for weapons.

1. Border and Airport Searches

Searches that take place at the airport or at the borders may not require a warrant

1. Consent

If you give an officer permission to search your property, they will. They do not need a warrant after you give them permission to search your property.

Special Considerations for Cell Phones

If you are arrested and have a cell phone in your possession, it’s important to know that the police cannot search the contents of your phone without a warrant. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) ruled that police must obtain a warrant before accessing the contents of a cell phone, as it contains personal and private information.

Consequences of a Conviction

It is important to understand the potential consequences of being convicted of a crime. Your rights during a police stop or search are crucial to ensuring that your case is handled fairly. If you believe your rights have been violated during a police interaction, it’s important to seek legal advice immediately and contact us.

Remember, if you ever feel unsure about your rights or how to handle a situation with law enforcement, don’t hesitate to reach out for assistance. We are here to help you navigate these challenging moments 24/7.

 

The Fulton County Pre-Trial Intervention and Diversion Program (also known as PIDP) is a program offered in Fulton County to offer an alternative to the traditional prosecution process. The Fulton County PIDP purpose is to deter future criminal behavior, monitor offenders from arrest through final case disposition, minimize loss to victims through payment of restitution by offenders, and to reduce the number of non-violent cases so that county resources can be used to prosecute more severe crimes.

The best part about Fulton County’s PIDP is that defendants who successfully complete the program will have their case dismissed. Your criminal record will also be restricted so that any criminal charges will not show up on background checks.

Certain types of defendants are eligible for participation in the Fulton County PIDP. At a minimum, defendants must have minimal felony nonviolent charges and minimal prior misdemeanor convictions. Additionally, participants must have never participated in a diversion program before and be able to pay any restitution.

Cases like drug possession, theft, or shoplifting are often offered participation in PIDP if it is a defendant’s first offense. If you have been charged with a non-violent offense in Fulton County, it is important that you hire a lawyer that is familiar with PIDP and would be able to negotiate that resolution to your case. Please call our office at 404-581-0999 for a free consultation and to see if PIDP might be a great option for you.

For people managing chronic pain, epilepsy, anxiety, or cancer, a prescription for medical marijuana may feel like a lifeline. In more than half of the United States, it is. But what happens when that patient leaves their home state with their medication in hand? The answer underscores a deep and often misunderstood constitutional issue: the tension between state medical marijuana laws and the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause is found in Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. It requires each state to recognize the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings” of every other state. In practice, this means that a marriage, court judgment, or business license recognized in one state is generally recognized in another. But the clause has limits. It doesn’t require one state to apply another state’s laws in violation of its own public policy. And that’s where medical marijuana laws hit a wall.

Medical marijuana laws are state-based exceptions to both federal and other state laws criminalizing marijuana possession. A doctor in California may lawfully prescribe cannabis to a patient under California law, but that same prescription carries no legal weight in Georgia or Texas if those states prohibit marijuana outright—even for medical purposes. While one might think the Full Faith and Credit Clause would protect the patient’s right to travel with their medicine, courts have routinely held that states are not required to enforce another state’s laws when doing so would contravene their own deeply held public policies. Since marijuana remains a Schedule I substance under federal law, and because some states continue to criminalize it, there is no constitutional obligation to honor out-of-state medical marijuana authorizations.

Contrast that with a prescription for oxycodone. Oxycodone is a Schedule II controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act. While heavily regulated, it is legal when prescribed by a licensed physician and dispensed through a pharmacy in any state. Because it is federally legal when prescribed, patients can travel with their medication nationwide, provided they carry it in its original prescription bottle and use it as directed. There’s no state in the U.S. where a properly prescribed oxycodone tablet becomes an illegal drug simply because a person crosses a state line. The key distinction: Oxycodone is regulated and accepted under federal law; marijuana, even when prescribed by a doctor, is not.

Even more concerning, transporting medical marijuana across state lines—even between two states where it is legal—can expose patients to federal prosecution for drug trafficking. Under federal law, the interstate transportation of marijuana remains a felony offense. A cancer patient driving from Colorado to New Mexico with their legally prescribed edibles in the trunk may be committing a federal crime the moment they cross state lines, despite being in compliance with both states’ laws.

At the same time, that same patient could also face state-level charges if they drive into a jurisdiction that does not recognize out-of-state marijuana prescriptions. In states with no medical marijuana program, possession remains illegal regardless of the source or purpose. The result? A patient can go from legal to criminal in the space of a mile.

Until there is federal reform, patients relying on medical marijuana must navigate a confusing and risky legal landscape. Those traveling out of state should never assume their prescription is valid elsewhere. Even flying with medical marijuana—even with a doctor’s note—can trigger serious consequences at TSA checkpoints, which are under federal jurisdiction.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not shield medical marijuana users from criminal liability in states that reject cannabis as a legal medicine. Unlike federally recognized prescriptions like oxycodone, marijuana remains a federally illegal substance. That legal distinction carves a deep divide between rights recognized in one state and crimes prosecuted in another. Until federal law catches up to medical science and modern public opinion, patients must tread carefully—because what’s medicine in one place may be contraband in another.

For now, patients should consult with an experienced attorney before traveling across state lines with cannabis. In some cases, it may be safer to leave the medication behind than risk arrest and prosecution.

What Is Permitted in Georgia?

In Georgia, the legal landscape for medical cannabis is notably restrictive. The state permits the use of low-THC oil for certain medical conditions, but this allowance comes with stringent limitations.​

Under Georgia law, patients and caregivers registered with the state’s Low THC Oil Registry are authorized to possess up to 20 fluid ounces of low-THC oil. This oil must contain no more than 5% THC by weight and an equal or greater amount of cannabidiol (CBD). The registry is managed by the Georgia Department of Public Health, and eligibility is confined to Georgia residents diagnosed with specific qualifying conditions, such as severe or end-stage cancer, epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease, and others. ​

Importantly, the law does not legalize the possession of marijuana in leaf form, nor does it permit the sale or use of food products infused with low-THC oil or the ingestion of low-THC oil through vapor. Physicians in Georgia do not prescribe marijuana; instead, they may certify patients for the Low THC Oil Registry. ​

Possession of any form of marijuana by individuals not authorized through the Low THC Oil Registry remains illegal under both state and federal law. This includes marijuana in plant form, edibles, and any cannabis products exceeding the 5% THC threshold. Even for registered patients, transporting low-THC oil across state lines can expose them to federal charges, as marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law.​

Furthermore, while some Georgia cities have decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana (listed below), these local ordinances do not override state law. Therefore, individuals found in possession of unauthorized cannabis products can still face state-level charges. ​

Georgia’s medical cannabis laws are narrowly tailored, allowing only specific patients to possess limited quantities of low-THC oil. The state does not recognize medical marijuana prescriptions from other states, and unauthorized possession of cannabis products remains a criminal offense. Patients and caregivers should exercise caution and ensure compliance with state regulations to avoid legal repercussions.

If you or a loved one have been arrested in Fulton County, Georgia, you may have heard about the 90-day bond rule but be confused about what this rule means.

O.C.G.A. §17-7-50 says that a person who is arrested must have their case indicted (formally charged) within 90 days or they are legally entitled to a bond. If prosecutors fail to meet this deadline, an accused person may file a motion for bond and the Court MUST grant them a bond. In a busy courthouse like Fulton County, this could easily happen.

This rule does not tell a judge that a bond must be set at a certain amount, only that a bond must be set. So, even though a bond must be set if your case is not indicted within 90 days, the bond may be more than you can afford. A skilled lawyer can argue for the lowest bond possible.

The 90-day bond rule is not automatically enforced, however. You must have a lawyer file a motion for bond and show the Court that 90 days have elapsed without indictment. If you believe that your loved one has been in custody without being indicted for over 90 days and without a bond, 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, 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, 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.

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, an 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, 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 prosecutors either to abandon digital leads or to 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, 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.