In State v. Middleton,
1
the State appealed the trial courts grant of Patrick Middletons motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop. In doing so, the State argued the court erred in ruling that because Officer Amanda Graw of the Kingsland Police Department—a municipal law enforcement officer—initiated the traffic stop of Middletons vehicle outside the municipalitys boundaries, she had no jurisdiction and thus was not engaged in the lawful discharge of her official duties at the time of the search and subsequent arrest. We agreed with the State, and reversed the grant of Middletons motion to suppress, concluding that Officer Graw had jurisdiction because she had been adequately deputized by the Camden County Sheriffs Office several years prior to the subject traffic stop. We further determined the trial courts finding that the State failed to introduce evidence as to the scope or content of this deputization was belied by Officer Graws uncontradicted testimony that she was, in fact, authorized to make arrests in Camden County. Then, in Middleton v. State,
2
the Supreme Court of Georgia vacated our opinion, explaining that the trial courts order was unclear as to whether it made a factual finding regarding the scope of Officer Graws deputization (which would be entitled to deference) or a legal ruling on the effect and duration of a general deputization (which would be subject to de novo review).
3
As a result, our Supreme Court directed us to vacate the trial courts order and remand the case with direction, seeking clarification as to whether the courts ruling that Officer Graw did not have legal authority to stop and search Middleton was based on the factual finding that she had been deputized for particular cases only. Accordingly, we vacate our prior opinion, adopt the opinion of the Supreme Court as our own, vacate the trial courts order, and remand this case for the court to clarify its order as directed.
Judgment vacated and remanded.
FOOTNOTES
1
. 363 Ga. App. 851, 872 S.E.2d 920 (2022).
2
. 316 Ga. 808, 890 S.E.2d 713 (2023).
3
. See Nelson v. State, 312 Ga. 375, 377, 863 S.E.2d 61 (2021) (“In reviewing a trial courts ruling on a defendants motion to suppress evidence, the trial courts decision with regard to questions of fact and credibility must be accepted unless clearly erroneous; ․ [t]he trial courts legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, however.”).
Dillard, Presiding Judge.
Mercier, C. J., and Markle, J., concur.