DUI Case Update: Allen v. The State

Appellate Court Victory in the Court of Appeals of Georgia A24A0005. Allen v. The State.

This blog post is brought to you by the Law Offices of George Creal. Are you facing DUI charges in Atlanta, Georgia? We understand how stressful this situation can be, and we are here to help.

This post discusses a recent victory in the Georgia Court of Appeals case A24A0005. Allen v. The State. Mr. Allen was pulled over by police and arrested for DUI, Less Safe DUI, Hit and Run, and Driving with an Open Container. Following his arrest, he filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing that the stop was illegal and the evidence obtained should not be used against him.

Pursuant to OCGA § 17-5-30 (a), a defendant may move to suppress evidence either because the warrantless search was illegal or, where there was a warrant, on one of three articulated grounds: "the warrant is insufficient on its face, there was not probable cause for the issuance of the warrant, or the warrant was illegally executed."

"When a defendant files a motion seeking suppression of items allegedly seized. Unlawfully, OCGA§ 17-5-30 (b) requires the defendant to state in the motion why the search and seizure were unlawful so as to afford notice of the legal issues which will be before the trial court." (Citation omitted.) State v. Alford, 347 Ga. App. 208, 212 (2) (818 SE2d 668) (2018); see also OCGA § 17-5-30 (b) ("The motion shall be in writing and state facts showing that the search and seizure were unlawful."). In cases involving warrantless searches, the factual showing required by OCGA § 17-5-30 need not be made in great detail, because in such cases many of the necessary allegations are negative facts (e.g., the search was conducted without a warrant, the movant did not consent to the search) and conclusions based upon mixed questions of law and negative fact (e.g., the officer lacked probable cause to arrest or search).In such cases, motions to suppress are held sufficient if they put the state on notice as to the type of search involved (without warrant vs. with warrant), which witness to bring to the hearing on the motion, and the legal issues to be resolved at that hearing. (Citation omitted.) Alford, supra, 347 Ga. App. at 212 (2)

The trial court partially dismissed Mr. Allen's motion, finding that it did not meet the requirements outlined in Georgia law. However, Mr. Allen appealed this decision, and the Court of Appeals agreed with him. The Court found that Mr. Allen's motion to suppress was sufficiently detailed and specific, and that it properly informed the State of the issues he intended to raise. Allen's motion detailed that it was challenging his stop and arrest and put the state on notice that search was conducted without a warrant which is enough under Georgia law.

This is a significant victory for Mr. Allen and his defense team. It means that the court will now reconsider his motion to suppress evidence, which could have a major impact on the outcome of his case.

What This Means for You

If you are facing DUI charges in Atlanta, Georgia, it is important to understand your rights and have an experienced attorney on your side. The Law Offices of George Creal can help you fight your charges and protect your future. We will work tirelessly to ensure that your rights are protected and that you receive the best possible outcome in your case.

Contact Us Today

For a free consultation, contact the Law Offices of George Creal today on the web at www.georgecreal.com or on the phone at (404) 333-0706. We are here to help you navigate the legal system and fight for your rights.


The information in this blog post is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Please consult with an attorney to discuss your specific legal situation.