Georgia case law updates and legal news
Edited By George Washington

The Atlanta Gleaner.

January 08, 2023.

Hughes v. State, No. A22A1428, 2023 WL 31017 (Ga. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2023)
#criminal law # no-knock search warrant #4th Amendment #drugs 
Bonnie Hughes was arrested and charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute following the execution of a no-knock search warrant at her residence in Spalding County. The trial court denied Hughes's motion to suppress, but granted a certificate of immediate review. Court of Appeals reverses. 

Using confidential informants, narcotics officers arranged for two controlled purchases of methamphetamine from Hughes at her residence. Following these purchases, the narcotics officers applied for a search warrant. In their application to the magistrate court, the investigator recounted the two controlled purchases and other information:

  • including citizen complaints of methamphetamine use and sales there and of multiple vehicles arriving at the residence and leaving after a short amount of time;

  • Surveillance cameras were set up on the corners of the residence and the assertion that Hughes was moving illegal narcotics on a daily basis.

  • Officers had attempted a “knock and talk” at the residence, but no one answered the door;

  • and that, in the investigators’ experience, controlled substances could be sold in various quantities which could be small in size and therefore easily hidden.

All of which meant there was a high risk of the contraband within the premises being destroyed or secreted away prior to apprehension if officers were required to knock and announce prior to entry. The “no-knock” search warrant was granted. Officers searched the home and found methamphetamine, marijuana, plastic baggies, a digital scale, smoking devices and other paraphernalia. As a result of the search, Hughes was charged with several counts of violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act.

Court of Appeals reverses. No-knock warrant was not justified by proffered evidence of daily methamphetamine drug dealing. Evidence that Hughes had a history of violence or had packaged or located the drugs in her residence for quick disposal could have made the difference.

Brailsford v. State, No. A22A1155, 2023 WL 20887 (Ga. Ct. App. Jan. 3, 2023)
#criminal law #entrapment #abandonment #undercover officer #sex crimes
After a jury trial, Brandoyn Brailsford was convicted of and sentenced for trafficking a person for sexual servitude and criminal attempt to commit aggravated child molestation. Brailsford appeals. AFFIRMED.

The evidence presented at trial showed that a police officer placed an advertisement on a known prostitution website as part of an investigation to find sexual predators. The advertisement included pictures of a female identified as being 19 years old and listed sexual services that she would provide. Brailsford called the telephone number shown on the advertisement, engaged in a series of conversations and text messages with the officer posing as the female on the advertisement, agreed to pay her $80 for 30 minutes of vaginal intercourse and oral sex, and arranged to meet her at a nearby park.

During the text messages, the officer told Brailsford that she was younger than the age indicated on the advertisement and that she was actually only 14 years old, to which Brailsford responded, “Ok cool.” He then continued with the texts and calls arranging their sexual rendezvous and drove to the park, where he was apprehended by police.

Brailsford argued on appeal entrapment and that he abandoned his criminal purpose when he attempted to leave the arranged meeting place without getting out of his vehicle. But at trial Brailsford testified he decided to leave because he was unfamiliar with the area, the situation “didn't feel right,” and he had a flashback to a previous incident when he had been robbed and shot.

The jury was authorized to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Brailsford made a substantial step toward completion of the crime and reject the defense of abandonment and entrapment.

Perry v. State, No. A22A1301, 2023 WL 109377 (Ga. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2023)
#criminal law #jury charges #self-defense #aggravated battery
On the evening of December 1, 2017, several friends and neighborhood acquaintances gathered at the home of Willie Mae Leslie to drink and socialize. Attendees, including the victim Kenyatta Simmons, gathered outside around a piping hot 55-gallon fire barrel to keep warm. The top of the barrel was cut off and it was stacked on cinder blocks to keep the bottom from burning out.

Perry arrived at Leslie's home between 11 p.m. and midnight. Several hours later Perry and her brother began arguing. After the argument, Perry and Simmons, who were friends at the time, exchanged words. Although Simmons who had had “a lot” to drink that night could not remember what she said to Perry, she recalled Perry pushed her and she fell against the barrel as a result.

Leslie, who did not witness the events leading up to the altercation because she was inside her home, heard a scuffle and walked outside. She observed Perry trying to throw Simmons into the fire barrel. Simmons's stomach sustained severe burns when she made contact with the barrel, which then toppled over. Simmons recounted that she fell to the ground, grabbed a beer bottle and tried to hit Perry with it. As a result of her injuries, Simmons had two skin grafts.

At trial, Perry testified in her own defense and offered a different version of events. According to Perry, after she and her brother argued, a very-intoxicated Simmons told her she should listen to her brother, to which Perry responded: “Stay out of it.” Simmons then waved her lit cigarette near Perry's face, and as Perry tried to push Simmons' hand away, Simmons stumbled and fell. Perry's brother and another individual then tried to walk Simmons home and Perry turned back toward the fire barrel. Simmons then ran back up the driveway and tried to hit Perry with a beer bottle, which she broke over the barrel. Perry testified that Simmons tried to kick Perry, and as she grabbed her leg, Simmons fell toward the barrel. Perry stated that she did not try to push Simmons into the barrel; rather, she tried to prevent Simmons from hitting her with the bottle but did not intend to harm Simmons. The jury found Perry guilty on one count aggravated assault and one count aggravated battery.

Court of Appeals reverses. The evidence was sufficient to support Perry's aggravated battery conviction. However, the trial court plainly erred in its instructions to the jury by omitting the portion of the pattern jury charge which reads: “The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant's actions were not justified. If you decide the Defendant's actions were justified, then it would be your duty to find the Defendant not guilty.” The standard of proof for disproving Perry’s self-defense argument was critical and without it the jury verdict was unsound.

January 02, 2023.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LUIS ERNESTO PEREZ-QUEVEDO, a.k.a. Acuerpado, Defendant-Appellant., No. 21-14021, 2022 WL 18005650 (11th Cir. Dec. 30, 2022)
#federal court #sentencing guidelines #11th Circuit #drug smuggling

Between July 2015 through October 2017 Perez-Quevedo and other individuals participated in a sophisticated drug-trafficking operation that included building Self-Propelled Semi-Submersible (SPSS) watercraft in Colombia, loading those vessels with significant quantities of cocaine, and dispatching those vessels to Mexico to supply members of the Sinaloa Cartel. The endgame was to distribute the cocaine in the United States.

This scheme involved multiple stages and it took roughly six weeks to build each SPSS vessel. The organization selected a construction site within the jungles of Colombia. Temporary housing was constructed for the workers. Carpenters, fiberglass fabricators and mechanics were needed. Finally, the completed SPSS vessel would be moved to a different location for storage until it was time to load the vessel with cocaine and dispatch to Mexico. 

As a general matter, workers were not permitted to leave the construction site until the SPSS vessel was completed and cell phones were not allowed on site.

Perez-Quevedo had a unique organizational role. After developing a relationship with two of the organization's bosses (Fernando Pineda-Jimenez and Rodrigo Pineda) by providing taxi services for about a year, Perez-Quevedo was offered a role in the drug-trafficking operation. His responsibilities ranged from helping in the construction or building of the site to being in charge of the radio that communicated with boats bringing materials to the construction site to facilitating payment between a boss in the organization (Fernando Pineda-Jimenez) and the head of the fiberglass crew (Adrian Luna-Munoz). At one point, Perez-Quevedo stopped working on the construction of the SPSS vessels and began working for Pineda-Jimenez as a chauffeur as well as someone who would “stay at the house and be responsible for the “missus” and for the children, take them to school and “be on the alert to do whatever was needed for.”

As it relates to this case, three SPSS vessels were built, loaded with cocaine and launched. The first of these vessels was interdicted by the Coast Guard on July 18, 2015. On board the vessel were four crewmembers and approximately 6,900 kilograms of cocaine. The second vessel was interdicted by the Coast Guard on August 31, 2015. Similar to the first vessel, there were four crewmembers and approximately 6,845 kilograms of cocaine on board. The third vessel was interdicted by the Coast Guard on March 3, 2016. There were four crewmembers and approximately 5,824 kilograms of cocaine on board.

Perez-Quevedo's involvement was considered to be the same with each vessel: “Specifically, Perez-Quevedo was involved in the preparations for this smuggling trip by facilitating operations at the construction site.”

Perez-Quevedo argues on appeal that for purpose of federal sentencing guidelines he “should be treated as a minor participant for his role” in the drug-trafficking operation. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held the district court did not clearly err in finding Perez-Quevedo was more than a “minor participant.”

In determining if the “minor participant” role reduction applies, the district court should weigh two considerations: (1) the defendant's role and (2) his role as compared to the roles of other participants. This analysis is “fact-based” and considers the “totality of the circumstances.”

Adams v. Sch. Bd. of St. Johns Cnty., Fla., No. 18-13592, 2022 WL 18003879 (11th Cir. Dec. 30, 2022)
#federal court #11th Circuit #Equal Protection Clause #Title IX #transgender rights

The School Board of St. Johns County (the “School Board”), is responsible per Fla. Stat. § 1001.42(8)(a) for providing “proper attention to health, safety, and other matters relating to the welfare of students” within the St. Johns County School District (the “School District”). The School Board maintains and oversees the K-12 policies for the 40,000 students who attend the thirty-six different schools within the School District. Of the 40,000 students attending schools within the School District, around sixteen identify as transgender.

Drew Adams is a transgender boy. Adams identifies as male, while his biological sex is female. In August 2015, Adams entered ninth grade at Allen D. Nease High School (“Nease”) within the School District. Nease provides female, male and sex-neutral bathrooms for its 2,450 students. Single-stall, sex-neutral bathrooms are provided to accommodate any student, including the approximately five transgender students at Nease who prefer not to use the bathrooms that correspond with their biological sex. 

The School Board maintains a bathroom policy under which male students must use the male bathroom and female students must use the female bathroom. For purposes of this policy, the School Board distinguishes between boys and girls on the basis of biological sex—which the School Board determines by reference to various documents, including birth certificates, that students submit when they first enroll in the School District. The School Board does not accept updates to students’ enrollment documents to conform with their gender identities.

In 2012, School District personnel began a comprehensive review of LGBTQ issues affecting students, culminating in 2015 with the announcement of a set of “Guidelines for LGBTQ students – Follow Best Practices” (the “Best Practices Guidelines”). Under the Best Practices Guidelines, School District personnel, upon request, address students consistent with their gender identity pronouns. The guidelines also allow transgender students to dress in accordance with their gender identities and publicly express their gender identities. Finally, the guidelines formally note that: “Transgender students will be given access to a gender-neutral restroom and will not be required to use the restroom corresponding to their biological sex.”

Because Adams is biologically female and first enrolled in the School District as a female, Adams is identified as a female for purposes of the bathroom policy. For the first few weeks of ninth grade, Adams used the male bathrooms (in violation of the bathroom policy) without incident. However at some point during this period two unidentified students observed Adams using a male bathroom and complained to school officials. The school then informed Adams that he had to use either the communal female bathrooms or the single-stall, sex-neutral bathrooms. Adams took issue with that directive and, with parental help, began petitioning the school to change its policy.

At all times relevant to the lawsuit, Adams possessed the reproductive anatomy he was born with, female. Over the course of high school, Adams began taking testosterone and underwent a mastectomy. Adams also legally changed his sex for purposes of his birth certificate and driver’s license.

On June 28, 2017, after Adams's efforts to change the School Board's bathroom policy failed, Adams filed suit against the School Board under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that its bathroom policy violated both the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. After a three-day bench trial, the district court ruled in Adams's favor on both counts. The district court enjoined the School Board from prohibiting Adams's use of the male bathrooms and granted Adams $1,000 in compensatory damages.

The issues before the Eleventh Circuit:

1) Does the School District's policy of assigning bathrooms based on sex violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution? And

2) Does the School District's policy of assigning bathrooms based on sex violate Title IX?

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held No and No. Reverses the district court.