Legal Opinion

State v. Sarden

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided August 17, 2010No. A10A1392PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

POPE, Senior Appellate Judge.

The state appeals the trial court’s grant of the motion filed by Octavius Orlando Sarden to suppress the cocaine seized from his car. The trial court suppressed the cocaine based upon its conclusion that the search of the car was unconstitutional because it was not supported by a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances. We conclude, however, that the search of Sarden’s car was authorized under the “automobile exception,” which does not require a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances in order for the search to be valid under the Fourth Amendment.…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. United States v. RossSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. California v. CarneySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Maryland v. DysonSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  4. State v. FolkCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1999
  5. State v. LejeuneSupreme Court of Georgia · 2003

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Horne v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2012
  2. Shell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2012
  3. The State v. Preston.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2019
  4. Blitch v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2013
  5. Ross v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2013

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API