Georgia DUI Lawyer George Creal: Analyzing The State v. Dean Case And Its Implications For Traffic Stops

As a dedicated Georgia DUI lawyer, I closely follow legal developments that impact the rights of drivers during traffic stops, particularly when it comes to the suppression of evidence in DUI cases. The recent Court of Appeals of Georgia decision in State v. Dean (A25A0160, decided March 19, 2025) provides critical insights into the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures during traffic stops. In this blog post, I’ll summarize the case, break down the court’s reasoning, and explain what it means for drivers facing similar situations in Georgia. If you’ve been charged with a DUI and believe your traffic stop was mishandled, this case underscores the importance of working with an experienced attorney to protect your rights.

Case Overview: State v. Dean

On January 18, 2021, Nicholas A. Dean was stopped by Sergeant Adam Pendelton of the Peachtree City Police Department for driving without a seatbelt or license plate. During the stop, Pendelton noticed a strong scent of aerosol air freshener, which, based on his experience, often indicated an attempt to mask the odor of marijuana. Due to safety concerns and the truck’s proximity to the roadway, Pendelton asked Dean to exit the vehicle, which Dean did after multiple requests. While Pendelton was writing a citation and reviewing Dean’s documents, a second officer arrived and took over the citation process. Simultaneously, Pendelton conducted a free-air sniff with a K-9 unit, which alerted to the presence of marijuana in less than 30 seconds. A subsequent search revealed less than one ounce of marijuana and a can of air freshener in Dean’s vehicle.

Dean moved to suppress the marijuana evidence, arguing that the traffic stop was unreasonably prolonged without reasonable articulable suspicion to conduct the free-air sniff. The trial court agreed, granting the motion to suppress, but the State appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, finding that the stop was not prolonged because the free-air sniff occurred concurrently with the citation process.

Key Legal Issues In State v. Dean

The State v. Dean case hinges on two main legal principles under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures:

• Reasonable Duration Of A Traffic Stop: A traffic stop must be reasonable in duration, meaning it should not extend beyond the time necessary to address the initial reason for the stop (here, the seatbelt and license plate violations) unless there is reasonable articulable suspicion of additional criminal activity.
• Free-Air Sniff By A K-9 Unit: A free-air sniff by a K-9 unit is permissible during a traffic stop if it does not unreasonably prolong the stop, as established in cases like Rodriguez v. United States (575 U.S. 348, 2015).

Trial Court’s Ruling

The trial court granted Dean’s motion to suppress, relying on State v. Thompson (256 Ga. App. 188, 2002), where a free-air sniff was conducted after the traffic stop’s mission (issuing a citation) was complete, thus requiring reasonable articulable suspicion to extend the detention. The trial court found that Pendelton lacked such suspicion based solely on the air freshener smell and Dean’s use of a small vent window, and concluded the stop was improperly extended for the K-9 sniff.

Court Of Appeals’ Reversal

The Court of Appeals reversed, distinguishing this case from Thompson. Key points in the court’s reasoning include:

• Timing Of The Free-Air Sniff: The free-air sniff occurred while the second officer was completing the citation, meaning the stop’s original mission was still ongoing. The court found that the sniff did not add time to the stop, as it was conducted concurrently with the citation process. This aligns with precedents like State v. Allen (298 Ga. 1, 2015) and Rush v. State (368 Ga. App. 827, 2023), where free-air sniffs during ongoing traffic stop tasks were deemed permissible.
• No Prolongation: Since the free-air sniff took less than 30 seconds and happened while the citation was being written, the stop was not unreasonably prolonged. The court emphasized that the critical question is whether the sniff adds time to the stop, not whether it occurs before or after the citation is issued (Rodriguez v. United States).
• Reasonable Articulable Suspicion Not Required: Because the stop was not extended, the court did not need to determine whether Pendelton had reasonable articulable suspicion to conduct the sniff. However, Pendelton’s observations (air freshener smell, Dean’s reluctance to exit or open the window) could have supported such suspicion if the stop had been prolonged.

Motion For Reconsideration

Dean filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that Pendelton prolonged the stop earlier by hesitating to write the citation, discussing potential drug possession, and calling for the second officer. He also contested the court’s description of the citation process. The Court of Appeals denied the motion on April 14, 2025, noting that these arguments were raised for the first time in the reconsideration motion and thus were not properly before the court. The court reaffirmed its original ruling, emphasizing that new arguments cannot be introduced at this stage (Barnes v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 373 Ga. App. 331, 2024).

Implications For Georgia Drivers

The State v. Dean decision has several important implications for drivers facing traffic stops in Georgia:

• Timing Of K-9 Sniffs Matters: Law enforcement can conduct a free-air sniff during a traffic stop without reasonable articulable suspicion if it does not extend the stop’s duration. If officers can multitask (e.g., one writes a citation while another conducts a sniff), the stop is unlikely to be deemed prolonged.
• Reasonable Suspicion Threshold: While the court did not rule on whether Pendelton had reasonable articulable suspicion, this case highlights that factors like the smell of air freshener and a driver’s reluctance to open windows or exit the vehicle may contribute to such suspicion. However, these factors alone were not tested here since the stop wasn’t prolonged.
• Challenging Traffic Stops: To successfully suppress evidence from a traffic stop, you must show that the stop was unreasonably prolonged without justification. If the stop’s mission (e.g., issuing a citation, running checks) is still ongoing during a K-9 sniff, suppression is less likely.
• Importance Of Video Evidence: The court relied on video evidence to determine the timeline of events, underscoring the value of body or dashcam footage in these cases. As a DUI attorney, I always request and review such footage to identify potential violations.

How George Creal Can Help

At George Creal, Attorney at Law, we understand the nuances of Fourth Amendment challenges in DUI cases. The State v. Dean case demonstrates how critical timing and procedural details are in determining the legality of a traffic stop. If you’ve been charged with a DUI or drug-related offense following a traffic stop, we can:

• Review The Stop’s Duration: We’ll examine whether the stop was unreasonably prolonged and whether any searches (like a K-9 sniff) were conducted without justification.
• Challenge Reasonable Suspicion: If the stop was extended, we’ll scrutinize whether officers had sufficient suspicion to justify the extension, leveraging cases like Rodriguez and Thompson.
• Analyze Video Evidence: We’ll obtain and review all available footage to ensure law enforcement followed proper protocol.
• Fight For Suppression: If evidence was obtained illegally, we’ll file a motion to suppress to exclude it from your case, potentially leading to reduced charges or dismissal.

With over 25 years of experience defending DUI cases in Georgia, I’m committed to protecting your constitutional rights and achieving the best possible outcome. If you’re facing charges, contact us today for a free consultation.

Conclusion

The State v. Dean case clarifies that a free-air K-9 sniff during a traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment if it occurs concurrently with the stop’s original mission, such as writing a citation. For Georgia drivers, this means law enforcement has significant leeway to conduct such sniffs without prolonging a stop, making it harder to suppress evidence unless the stop is clearly extended without reasonable suspicion. However, every case is unique, and an experienced DUI attorney can identify procedural errors or constitutional violations that may lead to suppression.

If you’re dealing with a DUI charge in Georgia, don’t navigate the legal system alone. Contact George Creal, Attorney at Law, at (770) 961-5511 or visit www.georgecreal.com to schedule your consultation. Let us fight for your rights and help you move forward.