Posts

City of Atlanta Municipal Court Practices and Procedure

/in , , , , , , , , /by

by Ryan Walsh

We get questions every day about how the Atlanta Municipal Court operates on a day to day basis. The Atlanta Municipal Court is the busiest courthouse in the southeast, and it is easy to get overwhelmed in the process. It is located at 150 Garnett Street, Atlanta, GA 30303 on the corner of Pryor Street and Garnett Street in downtown Atlanta. The courthouse is open from 7am – 5pm Monday through Friday (excluding city holidays).

The most important thing you can do to prepare for court at the Atlanta Municipal Court is to verify your court date and time. You can do this in three ways.

Two of those methods are done through online searches:

  • Go to Find My Court Case at the Atlanta Municipal Court’s website and put in your full name or citation number: http://court.atlantaga.gov/mycase/
  • You can search daily dockets for the current month of cases through the Atlanta Courtview system: http://courtview.atlantaga.gov/courtcalendars/default.aspx?Calendar=D Click on the date of your scheduled appearance and scroll through the court dates until you find your name. It should also tell you the time of your appearance and courtroom you are assigned.
  • Finally, you can call the Atlanta Municipal Court clerk’s office at 404-954-7914.

There are 10 Judges assigned to courtrooms in the Atlanta Municipal Court. Those Judges assigned by courtroom are:

3A – Judge Ward, 3B – Judge Gaines , 5A – Judge Portis, 5B – Judge Butler, 5C – Judge Sloan, 5D – Judge Dupre, 6A – Judge Bey, 6B – Judge Gundy, 6C – Judge Graves, and 6D – Judge Jackson

Judge Ward currently handles clients who have previously failed to appear in court. Judge Sloan only handles clients who are charged with Driving under the Influence (DUI). Judge Portis only handles code violations, which are generally residential, business, and noise ordinances. The other Judges handle a combination of state law offenses (traffic and some misdemeanors) and city ordinances.

Court is held at four times each day. Court times are 8:00am, 10:00am, 1:00pm, and 3:00pm. Depending which Judge you are assigned to will determine the time you need to appear in court each day.

Some charges in the City of Atlanta are eligible for the Pre-Trial Intervention program. Completion of the Pre-Trial Intervention program assures your case will be dismissed and your record will be restricted. Our office of experienced attorneys can guide you through the Pre-Trial Intervention program and determine whether we believe your charges will be eligible.

Clients often come to our office after failing to appear in court. Once you fail to appear in court in the Atlanta Municipal Court, your case is taken off the calendar and a bench warrant is issued for your arrest. If you do not address your failure to appear in twenty-one (21) days, the Atlanta Municipal Court sends information to the Georgia Department of Driver Services to suspend your Georgia driver’s license or your privilege to drive in the State of Georgia. At that point your case must be resolved in order to receive documentation to re-instate your driver’s license.

In order to get a court date after you fail to appear in court, you must show up between 7 and 8am at the City of Atlanta Courthouse. You will go downstairs to courtroom 1B where they will add your case to the failure to appear courtroom that day. That courtroom is courtroom 3A. You will then have the option to resolve your case through a plea, or ask for a trial. No matter what happens, you will receive paperwork that recalls the active bench warrant. After your case is resolved you will receive the paperwork to reinstate your driver’s license with the Department of Driver Services to lift any current suspension due to failing to appear.

The Atlanta Municipal Court is the busiest courthouse in the Southeast, handling more cases daily than any other courthouse. Navigating the court process can be difficult. Our firm handles charges in Atlanta every day. We are here to answer your questions and help you. Call us today at 404-581-0999 for a free consultation.

VIDEO – Testifying in Court in Your Georgia Criminal Case

/in , , , , , , /by

Testifying in court can make even some of the most seasoned attorneys nervous. But what about people charged with crimes who want to express their innocence and have never testified in court before? Watch this video below and call our office with questions.

Telling your story through testifying in court is about understanding the important pieces of your case. And what does that mean? It means what does the jury need to know about what happened? What does your jury need to know about you? How do you best tell your story to the jury? What does all of that include?

Well first and foremost you must tell the jury the truth. Jury members are smart. They will know if what you are telling them is not true. And as you are telling your story, truthful testimony will help the jury understand you as a person.

Next, listen to the entire question being asked and answer that and only that question.

Often, questions will begin with one of the classic question words like who, what, where, when, why, and how. You answer a where question with a location. Answer a question about time with the time. Jurors will stop caring about your story if you give non-responsive answers.

And if you do not fully understand the question being asked, take a moment and ask for clarification or ask for the question to be asked again.

Take a moment before answering each question to thing about your answer before actually saying it.

Let the pause calm yourself. Calm your nerves. Some questions will be inflammatory. Other questions asked by the state might even be offensive. Use that moment to center yourself to answer each question in a calm and collected manner.

You are allowed to qualify your answers on cross-examination. If the Georgia prosecutor is asking you for a yes or no answer and that’s all, you can explain your answer after responding yes or no. Do so when necessary.

Also, always remember you are telling your story to the jury. You aren’t speaking to the state’s prosecutor when they are asking you questions. Turn and make eye contact with each and every juror. Through eye contact, you will actually connect with the jury.

Putting these pieces together takes practice. It takes time. At our law firm we pride ourselves on discovery our client’s stories and preparing them for trial to connect with the Georgia jury. If you are our client and you want to practice, we are the only law firm that does criminal defense with our own mock courtroom where you can shake off your nerves and practice for testifying in court.

We want to help you tell your story. Call us today at 404-581-0999 for a free legal consultation on your Georgia criminal defense trial.

Thank you.

 

 

Georgia Analysis of Utah vs. Strieff Decision

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

by Ryan Walsh

The Fourth amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Traditionally, evidence found after a 4th amendment violation is excluded under what is known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. That is, any evidence recovered after a fourth amendment violation occurs is suppressed by the court and cannot be used against the defendant in his case. However, in the last ten years the United States Supreme Court has limited this exclusionary “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine to situations where exclusion is the last resort by highlighting a number of exceptions. ryan-walsh

Exceptions to the exclusionary rule under federal law include when an officer acts in good faith in what he believes is a legal search, when evidence is acquired through an independent source, when evidence would inevitably been discovered without the unconstitutional source, and the attenuation doctrine. The attenuation doctrine states that evidence is admissible when the connection between the 4th amendment violation and the evidence found is distant or the connection between the 4th amendment violation has been interrupted by a change in circumstances. The recent United States Supreme Court opinion, Utah vs. Strieff directly addresses the attenuation doctrine, creating situations where intervening circumstances cause Georgia citizens to be subject to searches and seizures that would otherwise be unreasonable under the Fourth amendment of the United States Constitution. Utah vs. Strieff, 579 U.S. ___ (2016).

In Utah, Edward Strieff left a home on foot that had been tied to drug activity and walked to a gas station. Officer Fackrell, who had been surveilling the home, approached Strieff, identified himself, asked Strieff for identification, detained him, and then questioned him regarding what he was doing at the residence. Officer Fackrell gave Strieff’s information to a police dispatcher, who told Fackrell that Strieff had an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation. Strieff was arrested and a search of his person was performed incident to the arrest, where Officer Fackrell found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia on Strieff. Strieff then moved to suppress the evidence of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. The State of Utah conceded that Officer Fackrell did not have reasonable suspicion for the stop, but argued that because of the arrest warrant, the connection between the unlawful stop and the search had been attenuated and the search incident to arrest and seizure were valid under the Fourth Amendment.

The United States Supreme Court agreed with the State of Utah. Despite the fact that the stop of Strieff was unlawful, the Court held that the valid arrest warrant created a change in circumstances that “attenuated” the illegal stop from the valid search and seizure. In looking towards whether there was a sufficient change in circumstances between the conduct that violated the fourth amendment and the discovery of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia on Strieff, the Court looked to three factors. The three factors are (1) “the temporal proximity between the unconstitutional conduct and the discovery of the evidence, (2) the presence of intervening circumstances, and (3) the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.” Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603-604 (1975). The Court found that factor one favored Strieff in that the time between the unconstitutional conduct and the discovery of evidence was very brief. But the Court found that factors two and three favored the State. The existence of a valid arrest warrant was a significant intervening circumstance, and that Officer Fackrell was at most negligent in his stopping of Strieff outside the gas station. In discussing Officer Fackrell’s negligence, the Court addresses what they call his “good-faith mistakes.” Therefore, the evidence seized by Officer Fackrell was admissible at trial against Strieff. Now that we’ve analyzed the law applied by the United States Supreme Court, is the holding in Utah v. Strieff applicable to Georgia citizens?

Georgia’s restrictions on searches and seizures are greater than the protections provided by the United States Government. Georgia codified their exclusionary rule in O.C.G.A. §17-5-30. The language in that statute provides no good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Further, Georgia courts don’t officially recognize any specific exceptions to the exclusionary rule, but they do offer their rationale in determining whether evidence that could be excluded as “fruit of the poisonous tree” will be excluded. That rationale is most clearly articulated in Vergara v. State. Vergara v. State, 283 Ga 175 (2008). In Vergara, the Supreme Court of Georgia says, “Under the fruits doctrine as

explicated by the (United States) Supreme Court and adopted by this Court, we need not hold that all evidence is ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ simply because it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police. … The more apt question … is ‘whether… the evidence … has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged by the primary taint.’” Vergara, at 182-183.

Applying the absence of a good-faith exception along with the guidance provided in Vergara, it’s unclear what Georgia courts would do if presented with the facts of Strieff. Edward Strieff was approached by Officer Fackrell and asked for his identification, which he provided. Fackrell ran his identification and saw the outstanding warrant, arrested, Strieff, and found the contraband. Because there is no good-faith exception to unreasonable searches and seizures under Georgia law, Officer Fackrell cannot be said to be merely negligent in his stop of Strieff. The evidence was clearly found as a direct result of the bad stop. And the evidence is of the sort that may not have been found independently or inevitably. There are strong arguments that this sort of evidence is still fruit of the poisonous tree under Georgia’s application of the Fourth Amendment.

However, until Georgia addresses this issue, it is unclear whether a valid arrest warrant can trigger a search incident to arrest for an otherwise unlawful stop. If you’ve been arrested and feel your Georgia rights have been violated, call the Peach State Lawyer today for a free consultation at 404-581-0999.