DUI Case Update: Tatum v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia considers whether the independent source doctrine allows the admission of cell-phone evidence obtained via a search warrant, without considering if the decision to seek the warrant was prompted by an earlier warrantless search of the same cell-phone.

A scene depicting a Georgia police officer searching a detained persons cell phone The officer is standing next to the detained person who is seate Tatum v. State, S230955, Supreme Court of Georgia, June 11, 2024

Background and Case Overview

On June 11, 2024, the Supreme Court of Georgia decided on the case of Tatum v. The State (S23G0955), vacating Mark Joseph Tatum’s conviction for a “peeping Tom” violation and invasion of privacy. This case, rooted in a 2018 incident where Tatum was accused of surreptitiously recording his female neighbor through her window, raises significant Fourth Amendment issues regarding unlawful searches and the independent source doctrine.

Incident and Initial Proceedings

The incident occurred late at night on July 15, 2018, when Tatum was seen photographing an 18-year-old female neighbor through her bedroom window. Tatum was stopped shortly after the neighbor's 911 call, and his cell phone was seized by Deputy Will Townsend. After approaching Tatum, Townsend asked Tatum if he would show him the last photo he had taken. After Townsend told Tatum he could detain him and obtain a warrant, Tatum agreed to show and “appeared as if he was trying to delete something.” Townsend then grabbed his phone and saw a thumbnail of a young woman standing in a room through a window. After placing Tatum in handcuffs and into the back of his car, Townsend looked at the phone for a second time, both without warrant. Townsend then saw a video of a female in her room folding clothes with her breasts exposed. After this, Townsend arrested Tatum and law enforcement then drafted a warrant application and later searched the phone with that warrant. Townsend's warrantless search of Tatum's phone revealed incriminating evidence, which was later used to obtain a search warrant. Tatum was convicted of a “peeping Tom” violation and invasion of privacy but was found not guilty of tampering with evidence. He was sentenced to five years in prison, with additional probation.

Fourth Amendment Concerns and Appeals

Tatum’s conviction was appealed on the grounds that the evidence obtained from his cell phone was the result of an unlawful search. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, applying the independent source doctrine to justify the admissibility of the evidence. The Court of Appeals assumed the initial warrantless search was illegal but concluded that the evidence was admissible because the warrant application contained enough information to support probable cause independently.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision

The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari to address whether the independent source doctrine allows the admission of cell-phone evidence obtained via a search warrant, without considering if the decision to seek the warrant was prompted by a prior, warrantless search.

  1. Testimony and Evidence: Deputy Townsend testified that he viewed the contents of Tatum’s phone twice without a warrant. His initial viewing of a thumbnail image on the phone’s screen led to the subsequent warrantless viewing of an incriminating video. The Court had to determine whether this initial illegal search prompted the decision to obtain a warrant.
  1. Independent Source Doctrine: This doctrine permits the admission of evidence initially discovered during an unlawful search if later obtained independently through lawful means. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Murray v. United States requires courts to consider if the decision to seek the warrant was prompted by information obtained during the prior illegal search. If the warrant application would not have been sought but for the prior unlawful search, the evidence should be excluded.
  1. Supreme Court’s Conclusion: The Supreme Court of Georgia found that the trial court had not adequately considered whether the decision to seek the warrant was prompted by Deputy Townsend’s unlawful search. Therefore, the Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with their opinion.

Implications of the Decision

This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. It clarifies the application of the independent source doctrine in Georgia, aligning with federal standards that prevent law enforcement from benefiting from illegal searches. The decision ensures that evidence obtained through unlawful means cannot be admitted unless it can be shown that the lawful search warrant was truly independent of the initial illegal search.

For legal professionals and law enforcement, this case serves as a critical reminder of the necessity of following constitutional protocols in evidence gathering. The ruling also highlights the judiciary's role in upholding civil liberties while balancing the interests of justice.

The Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision in Tatum v. The State marks a significant moment in the interpretation and application of the Fourth Amendment within the state. It reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to preventing unlawful searches and maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice process. This case will likely influence future rulings and law enforcement practices regarding search warrants and the independent source doctrine.

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.