Posts

I have an FTA in Municipal Court of Atlanta. What do I do?

If you missed your Court date, you may be concerned about whether or not there are warrants out against you. What you may not know is that an FTA in Municipal Court of Atlanta (hereafter, “MCOA”,) can also result in a license suspension. If you have missed a Court date, you should act swiftly to clear up the FTA. Failing to take action could result in your arrest. So what should you do?

To clear up an FTA in MCOA, you can go to the Courthouse and request a new Court date. The clerk will lift the warrant and place you on an “FTA Calendar.” Note that the license suspension will not be lifted until the Judge approves it at the FTA Calendar. Keep in mind that, until the warrant is lifted, if any officer finds that you have an active warrant, they would have the authority to arrest you. Although you probably do not have to worry about being arrested inside the Courthouse when you go to address your FTA, it is wise to enlist the help of an attorney to go with you or to ask the Court to lift the warrant on your behalf.

Once the warrant is lifted, you are no longer at risk of being arrested for the FTA. However, your license will remain suspended until the Judge releases the suspension. This will not happen until your Court date. In the meantime, continuing to drive on your suspended license puts you at risk. If you are stopped for a traffic offense (speeding, for example,) and the officer determines your license is suspended, not only will you get a speeding ticket, but you will also be charged with Driving on a Suspended License, a misdemeanor which can result in fines, additional jail time, and can suspend your license for six months.

Of course, it can be difficult to go about your daily life with a suspended license. We can help expedite things to get you an earlier Court date so you can get your license back and address the underlying charges. Missing a Court date can be serious, but you don’t have to address it alone. Give us a call. We are within walking distance of Municipal Court of Atlanta and we can walk down to get your FTA lifted same-day. For a free consultation with one of our attorneys, call 404581-0999. Written by Attorney Katherine A. Edmonds.

Georgia Analysis of Utah vs. Strieff Decision

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.

FTA (Failure To Appear) Status

FTA (Failure to Appear) Status: What Can Happen and What to Do About It

As a rule of thumb, when you are summoned to court for ANY felony, misdemeanor or traffic charge, you MUST appear in court.

This is because, at your court date, the judge will go through the calendar (the list of people who are scheduled to appear before the court) like attendance at school. If your name is called and you (or your attorney) are not there to make an announcement to the court, the prosecutor will ask the judge to issue a bench warrant and an order forfeiting your bond. Most times, the judge will do just that—issue the bench warrant and sign a bond forfeiture order.

A bench warrant is a warrant for your arrest. While it won’t get you on America’s Most Wanted List, it will mean that your name will be entered into a nationwide police database and available to law enforcement until it is resolved.

So, if you interact with police thereafter and they run your name through their database, they will see the warrant for your arrest and you will be taken into custody (and transported to the jurisdiction where the warrant was issued).200274144-001

A bond forfeiture order is only issued when a person was released from jail on bail and has failed to appear at a subsequent court date. In this situation, the bondsmen are ordered to put up the outstanding bond amount and all of that money is forfeited to the property of the jurisdiction overseeing the case.

If that isn’t bad enough… when you miss a court date and the judge issues a bench warrant for you, DDS will IMMEDIATELY suspend your license and notify you at the address listed on your license. So, make sure you update your address with DDS!

If you are living on the wild side and driving on your suspended license, you run the risk of being stopped by police for a new traffic offense. If that happens, you will be arrested on the bench warrant, cited for the new traffic offense, and also charged with Driving with a Suspended License. Driving with a suspended license is a charge that is punishable by a maximum of 12 months in custody, $1000 fine, and an additional license suspension.

Because bench warrants can cause a variety of unanticipated legal trouble, it is wise to consult with one of our attorneys to understand your options.

But, in the meantime, here is my advice to you:

1. If you know you missed a court date and have not been arrested yet…

I suggest you immediately call the clerk of court in the jurisdiction where you missed court and ask them how you can lift the bench warrant. Some courts will allow you to pay a fee to lift the bench warrant and get a new court date.  Other courts will require you to appear before judge on a special “failure to appear” calendar, at which time you will either have to 1) Plead guilty to charges and take whatever deal the State is offering or 2) Get taken into custody on the bench warrant be booked in (mugshot again) and have to bail out again, and then fight the charges later on.

2. If you are worried that your license may be suspended…

Check the status online at: https://online.dds.ga.gov/dlstatus/default.aspx

3. If you have changed your address since your case was bound over from a municipality like Sandy Springs or City of Atlanta, YOU MUST UPDATE YOUR ADDRESS WITH THE FULTON COUNTY STATE COURT CLERK!!!

If you do not update your address, they will send notice to the address provided at the time the case was in the municipality. The State Court Clerk is located in Room J-150 of the 160 Pryor Building of the Fulton County Courthouse.

Finally, if you are unable to get the warrant lifted then it is important to turn yourself in as soon as possible.  Outstanding warrants can only be resolved by the Judge withdrawing the warrant OR by execution of the warrant (turning yourself in).

Our lawyers are trained to handle difficult criminal procedure questions.  At WSSPC our goal is to zealously represent each and every one of our clients.  If you have found yourself with a bench warrant please contact our office immediately at 404-581-0999 or visit our website at www.peachstatelawyer.com for more information.