Real results. Real clients.
When everything is on the line, you need more than promises. You need proof.
North Georgia Legal has defended clients in courtrooms across Northeast Georgia, delivering dismissals, reductions, and not guilty verdicts in serious cases.
North Georgia Legal has defended clients in courtrooms across Northeast Georgia, delivering dismissals, reductions, and not guilty verdicts in serious cases.
“He was able to help get my husband’s case pled to lesser charges, keep his license, and avoid jail time. I would recommend him 10 out of 10 times.”
Amanda S.
“Got me results better than I could have expected. The entire process was smooth and simple.”
Brady G.
“Sam is a great attorney and is highly respected in the NE Georgia judicial community. I would not hesitate to recommend him.”
David H.
“Sam Sliger is the best attorney I have ever used. He handled a very complex case load and exceeded my expectations.”
Andy T.
“Sam Sliger is the best attorney I have ever used. He handled a very complex case load and exceeded my expectations.”
Bri J.
“He took care of everything and made sure it wouldn’t affect my CDL record. I was in and out of court in less than 20 minutes.”
C. H.
“I had an absolutely flawless experience with Sam. He was responsive, easy to work with, and the outcome was tremendous.”
Krista H.
“Sam proved to be the fighter I needed in my corner. He told me he wouldn’t settle for just any deal.”
ADZK9S L.
“Sam remains by your side to get the best possible outcome. His dedication and follow-through really stood out.”
Kristan O.
“I felt like I was dealing with a friend rather than a lawyer. He made everything easy to understand and handled my case quickly.”
Tyler C.
“The best attorney I’ve ever seen. He got several charges dropped and all I had to pay was a fine.”
Robert O.
“Sam was completely open and upfront about all possible outcomes. It was a win-win result for me.”
Josh G.
“Sam did exactly what he said he was going to do. I would not hesitate to recommend him for world-class legal advice.”
Stephen B.
“Sam picked up the phone, had a plan in place within minutes, and won my case. My insurance didn’t go up.”
Kristi C.
“Sam remains by your side to get the best possible outcome. His dedication and follow-through really stood out.”
Kristan O.
“Sam fought my case for years and got acceptable results. I didn’t have to travel to every court date. Very professional and personal.”
Diane M.
“The guy is a miracle worker. He pulled us out of a very tight spot.”
Jake S.
“Helped with a situation that had a low likelihood of success and delivered the best possible outcome.”
Gavin R.
“Easy consult. Easy process. Fast results. No points on my record.”
Ray J.
Case Results
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Every case is unique.
Dismissals and Suppressions
Case Dismissed – No Probable Cause
The judge agreed there was no legal basis for the DUI arrest. Evidence was suppressed, and the case was dismissed.
Not Guilty Verdicts
Case Dismissed – No Probable Cause
The judge agreed there was no legal basis for the DUI arrest. Evidence was suppressed, and the case was dismissed.
Reductions and Alternative Outcomes
Case Dismissed – No Probable Cause
The judge agreed there was no legal basis for the DUI arrest. Evidence was suppressed, and the case was dismissed.
Serious Cases Won
Case Dismissed – No Probable Cause
The judge agreed there was no legal basis for the DUI arrest. Evidence was suppressed, and the case was dismissed.
Featured Cases
Pittman v. State, 366 Ga. App. 372, 883 S.E.2d 56 (2023)
In the case of Pittman v. The State, the Court of Appeals of Georgia reviewed the modified sentencing of Client, who was convicted of several misdemeanor traffic violations, simple assault, and driving under the influence (DUI) less safe. Initially, Client was sentenced to 180 days in a probation detention center (PDC), followed by probation. However, it was later discovered that Client was not eligible to serve his time in a PDC because he had not been convicted of a felony, as required by Georgia law.
The trial court then modified Client's sentence to 170 days in county jail, followed by probation. Sam Sliger and Nationally recognized criminal defense attorney Ben Sessions appealed this modification, arguing that the trial court lacked the authority to resentence him to jail time and that the sentence should have been amended in open court. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court was within its discretion to correct the void sentence and impose jail time, as the original sentence was void due to Pittman's ineligibility for a PDC.
Client also contended that the trial court violated double jeopardy provisions by imposing a more severe sentence after he had begun serving the original sentence. The Court of Appeals disagreed, stating that because the original sentence was void, Client had no legitimate expectation of finality, and thus the trial court was authorized to impose a new, more severe sentence.
Additionally, the Court of Appeals addressed Pittman's argument that the trial court should have only vacated the void portion of the sentence. The court held that the trial court had the discretion to either vacate the entire sentence or strike only the void provision.
Finally, the Court of Appeals agreed with Client's argument that the trial court erred by not resentencing him in open court. The court emphasized that a criminal defendant has the right to be present at all critical stages of the proceedings, including resentencing. Since the amended sentence was issued via email rather than in open court, the Court of Appeals vacated the sentence and remanded the case with instructions for the trial court to reimpose the modified sentence in open court.
Finally, the Court of Appeals agreed with Client's argument that the trial court erred by not resentencing him in open court. The court emphasized that a criminal defendant has the right to be present at all critical stages of the proceedings, including resentencing. Since the amended sentence was issued via email rather than in open court, the Court of Appeals vacated the sentence and remanded the case with instructions for the trial court to reimpose the modified sentence in open court.
Zeigler v. State, 350 Ga. App. 716, 830 S.E.2d 256 (2019)
The case of Zeigler v. The State was heard by the Court of Appeals of Georgia, with the decision issued on June 21, 2019. Client was convicted in the Superior Court of Habersham County for several charges, including Conspiracy to Violate the Georgia Controlled Substances Act, Violation of Oath as a Public Officer, and Crossing the Guard lines with Controlled Substances. Client appealed her conviction, arguing that her confession was not free and voluntary, and that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction for violating her oath of office.
Client's appeal centered on the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress statements she made during an investigation, which she claimed were not voluntary under the United States Supreme Court's decision in Garrity v. New Jersey. The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's findings and the evidence presented during the Jackson-Denno hearing, which included an audio recording of Client's interview with law enforcement. Client was approached by a Special Agent with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) as part of a criminal investigation into the smuggling of Controlled Substances into the jail. During the interview, Client was not advised of her rights under Miranda or Garrity, and she eventually confessed.
The trial court found that Client's belief that she would be terminated if she did not answer the agents' questions was not objectively reasonable, based on her understanding of the Sheriff's Office policies and her belief that the investigation was criminal in nature. However, the Court of Appeals concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances, Client's belief was objectively reasonable. The court noted that Client had no investigatory experience, was not P.O.S.T.-certified, and was not informed of her rights, which contributed to the involuntariness of her confession.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, finding that Client's statements were not voluntary and should have been suppressed. The case was remanded to the trial court with directions to grant Client's motion to suppress. Client was wrongfully convicted and the Court of Appeals reversed that Conviction.
Client's appeal centered on the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress statements she made during an investigation, which she claimed were not voluntary under the United States Supreme Court's decision in Garrity v. New Jersey. The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's findings and the evidence presented during the Jackson-Denno hearing, which included an audio recording of Client's interview with law enforcement. Client was approached by a Special Agent with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) as part of a criminal investigation into the smuggling of Controlled Substances into the jail. During the interview, Client was not advised of her rights under Miranda or Garrity, and she eventually confessed.
The trial court found that Client's belief that she would be terminated if she did not answer the agents' questions was not objectively reasonable, based on her understanding of the Sheriff's Office policies and her belief that the investigation was criminal in nature. However, the Court of Appeals concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances, Client's belief was objectively reasonable. The court noted that Client had no investigatory experience, was not P.O.S.T.-certified, and was not informed of her rights, which contributed to the involuntariness of her confession.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, finding that Client's statements were not voluntary and should have been suppressed. The case was remanded to the trial court with directions to grant Client's motion to suppress. Client was wrongfully convicted and the Court of Appeals reversed that Conviction.
Lovell v. State, 921 S.E.2d 12 (Ga. Ct. App. 2025)
In the case of Lovell v. The State, the Court of Appeals of Georgia reviewed an interlocutory appeal filed by Sam Sliger, who challenged the trial court's dismissal of his motion to suppress evidence. Client was charged with driving under the influence (DUI), distracted driving, and failure to maintain lane, following traffic citations issued by a Trooper on September 30, 2021. Client's pre-trial motions, including a motion to suppress, argued that his detention and arrest were unlawful due to a lack of reasonable suspicion and probable cause, as Trooper did not observe him committing a traffic offense.
The trial court dismissed Client's motions, citing a lack of notice and particularity, as Client allegedly failed to specify the matters to be heard in his notice of hearing, and his motion to suppress was deemed insufficient under OCGA § 17-5-30. Client's motion was criticized for being a "boiler plate motion" and for incorrectly referencing a traffic stop, which was not part of the case.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that Client's motion to suppress was sufficiently particularized to put the State on notice of the legal issues, as it included details such as the date of detention, the name of the officer, and the lack of probable cause. The court noted that in cases involving warrantless searches, the factual showing required by OCGA § 17-5-30 does not need to be detailed, as many necessary allegations are negative facts. The court also addressed the issue of the local court rule, which required specific notice of hearing, and found that it contravened the statute, thus it could not serve as a basis for dismissing Lovell's motion. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, emphasizing that Client's motion to suppress was sufficiently particularized and that the local rule could not override statutory requirements. The judgment was reversed, allowing Client to challenge the legitimacy of his detention and arrest.
*****
Wrongful Conviction - Client was wrongfully Convicted and Immediately released from Prison
The trial court dismissed Client's motions, citing a lack of notice and particularity, as Client allegedly failed to specify the matters to be heard in his notice of hearing, and his motion to suppress was deemed insufficient under OCGA § 17-5-30. Client's motion was criticized for being a "boiler plate motion" and for incorrectly referencing a traffic stop, which was not part of the case.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that Client's motion to suppress was sufficiently particularized to put the State on notice of the legal issues, as it included details such as the date of detention, the name of the officer, and the lack of probable cause. The court noted that in cases involving warrantless searches, the factual showing required by OCGA § 17-5-30 does not need to be detailed, as many necessary allegations are negative facts. The court also addressed the issue of the local court rule, which required specific notice of hearing, and found that it contravened the statute, thus it could not serve as a basis for dismissing Lovell's motion. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, emphasizing that Client's motion to suppress was sufficiently particularized and that the local rule could not override statutory requirements. The judgment was reversed, allowing Client to challenge the legitimacy of his detention and arrest.
*****
Wrongful Conviction - Client was wrongfully Convicted and Immediately released from Prison
Goode v. State, 367 Ga. App. 849, 888 S.E.2d 662 (2023)
In the case of Goode v. The State, the Court of Appeals of Georgia reviewed the denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop. Client was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) after a traffic stop led to her arrest. The trial court had denied her motion to suppress, and Sam Sliger appealed this decision.
The incident began when a Deputy Sheriff observed two vehicles failing to maintain their lane of travel while he was transporting an arrestee to jail. S.O. radioed a description of the vehicles to another deputy, who then stopped the vehicles. Within 30 minutes of calling in the vehicle descriptions, S.O. arrived at the scene, noticed an odor of alcohol on Client's breath, and began a DUI investigation. Client was subsequently arrested after performing field sobriety evaluations, and a breath test at the jail showed her blood-alcohol concentration was 0.099. The Court of Appeals focused on whether the traffic stop was unreasonably prolonged, which would make the detention unlawful. The court noted that the tolerable duration of a traffic stop is determined by the "mission" of the stop, which is to address the traffic violation and related safety concerns. The authority for the seizure ends when tasks related to the traffic infraction are completed.
The trial court had not made specific findings about what the deputies did between the time they stopped Client and when S.O. began the DUI investigation. The state failed to present evidence on this issue, and the trial court did not decide whether the state met its burden of proving that the seizure was not unnecessarily prolonged. Instead, the trial court held that the record did not show the stop was unnecessarily prolonged, considering the deputies were dealing with two vehicles and two DUI investigations. The Court of Appeals held that the state did not meet its burden of proving that the traffic stop was not unreasonably prolonged. The state failed to present evidence justifying the continuation of the detention for a DUI investigation. As a result, the trial court erred in denying Client's motion to suppress, and the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment.
** Expert Testimony on Impairment
The incident began when a Deputy Sheriff observed two vehicles failing to maintain their lane of travel while he was transporting an arrestee to jail. S.O. radioed a description of the vehicles to another deputy, who then stopped the vehicles. Within 30 minutes of calling in the vehicle descriptions, S.O. arrived at the scene, noticed an odor of alcohol on Client's breath, and began a DUI investigation. Client was subsequently arrested after performing field sobriety evaluations, and a breath test at the jail showed her blood-alcohol concentration was 0.099. The Court of Appeals focused on whether the traffic stop was unreasonably prolonged, which would make the detention unlawful. The court noted that the tolerable duration of a traffic stop is determined by the "mission" of the stop, which is to address the traffic violation and related safety concerns. The authority for the seizure ends when tasks related to the traffic infraction are completed.
The trial court had not made specific findings about what the deputies did between the time they stopped Client and when S.O. began the DUI investigation. The state failed to present evidence on this issue, and the trial court did not decide whether the state met its burden of proving that the seizure was not unnecessarily prolonged. Instead, the trial court held that the record did not show the stop was unnecessarily prolonged, considering the deputies were dealing with two vehicles and two DUI investigations. The Court of Appeals held that the state did not meet its burden of proving that the traffic stop was not unreasonably prolonged. The state failed to present evidence justifying the continuation of the detention for a DUI investigation. As a result, the trial court erred in denying Client's motion to suppress, and the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment.
** Expert Testimony on Impairment
Garrison v. State, 319 Ga. 711, 905 S.E.2d 629 (2024)
Fourth Amendment Cases - Illegal Seizure
The case of Garrison v. The State was decided by the Supreme Court of Georgia on August 13, 2024, with reconsideration denied on September 17, 2024. Client was convicted in the Superior Court of Union County for multiple offenses, including driving under the influence (DUI) less safe (combined influence), DUI less safe (alcohol), failure to maintain lane, and improper tires. Her motion in arrest of judgment was denied, and she appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, and certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court of Georgia. The Supreme Court addressed two main issues: whether the State needed to allege and prove the application of emergency orders under the Judicial Emergency Act to extend the statute of limitations, and whether the admission of horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test evidence was subject to the Daubert standard for scientific evidence.
1. Statute of Limitations and Judicial Emergency Act: The Court concluded that the State was not required to allege and prove the application of emergency orders issued during the COVID-19 pandemic to extend the statute of limitations. The Court reasoned that the existence of such orders is not a fact that the State must prove, as they are effective as a matter of law in every case within the jurisdiction of the issuing official. The Court noted that the Judicial Emergency Act does not impose notice requirements on the State for relying on such orders, and there is no factual defense a defendant can mount against the application of a valid order.
2. Admissibility of HGN Test Evidence: The Court found that the trial court erred by not applying the Daubert standard to assess the admissibility of the HGN test evidence. The Daubert standard, which became applicable to criminal cases in Georgia in July 2022, requires the trial court to assess the qualifications of the witness and the relevancy and reliability of the proffered testimony. The trial court had instead applied the Harper standard, which was no longer applicable. The Supreme Court determined that this error was not harmless, as the evidence of Garrison's impairment was circumstantial and not overwhelming, and the HGN test was the strongest evidence of impairment presented at trial.
The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court to determine under the proper standard whether the HGN testimony was properly admitted. If the trial court finds that the testimony should have been excluded, a new trial will be necessary. The case highlights the procedural nuances in applying emergency orders to extend statutes of limitations and the importance of applying the correct standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence in criminal trials. ****
The case of Garrison v. The State was decided by the Supreme Court of Georgia on August 13, 2024, with reconsideration denied on September 17, 2024. Client was convicted in the Superior Court of Union County for multiple offenses, including driving under the influence (DUI) less safe (combined influence), DUI less safe (alcohol), failure to maintain lane, and improper tires. Her motion in arrest of judgment was denied, and she appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, and certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court of Georgia. The Supreme Court addressed two main issues: whether the State needed to allege and prove the application of emergency orders under the Judicial Emergency Act to extend the statute of limitations, and whether the admission of horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test evidence was subject to the Daubert standard for scientific evidence.
1. Statute of Limitations and Judicial Emergency Act: The Court concluded that the State was not required to allege and prove the application of emergency orders issued during the COVID-19 pandemic to extend the statute of limitations. The Court reasoned that the existence of such orders is not a fact that the State must prove, as they are effective as a matter of law in every case within the jurisdiction of the issuing official. The Court noted that the Judicial Emergency Act does not impose notice requirements on the State for relying on such orders, and there is no factual defense a defendant can mount against the application of a valid order.
2. Admissibility of HGN Test Evidence: The Court found that the trial court erred by not applying the Daubert standard to assess the admissibility of the HGN test evidence. The Daubert standard, which became applicable to criminal cases in Georgia in July 2022, requires the trial court to assess the qualifications of the witness and the relevancy and reliability of the proffered testimony. The trial court had instead applied the Harper standard, which was no longer applicable. The Supreme Court determined that this error was not harmless, as the evidence of Garrison's impairment was circumstantial and not overwhelming, and the HGN test was the strongest evidence of impairment presented at trial.
The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court to determine under the proper standard whether the HGN testimony was properly admitted. If the trial court finds that the testimony should have been excluded, a new trial will be necessary. The case highlights the procedural nuances in applying emergency orders to extend statutes of limitations and the importance of applying the correct standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence in criminal trials. ****
McDonald & Cody v. State, 364 Ga. App. 457, 875 S.E.2d 430 (2022)
Forfeiture Case and Attorney Lien Against the State
In the case of McDonald & Cody v. State of Georgia, the Court of Appeals of Georgia addressed a civil forfeiture action involving a law firm, McDonald & Cody, and their clients. The State of Georgia had filed a complaint for forfeiture in November 2018, alleging violations of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. The complaint listed several bank accounts belonging to the Clients that had been seized by the State. The Patels hired McDonald & Cody to handle the claims related to these seized accounts, and they signed contingency fee agreements in February 2019. Attorneys Sam Sliger and Steve Maples, associated with McDonald & Cody, represented the Patels in both the civil forfeiture and related criminal cases. McDonald & Cody filed answers on behalf of their Clients in the forfeiture action, seeking the return of the seized property. They moved to dismiss the forfeiture complaint due to the State's failure to schedule a bench trial within 60 days after the last claimant was served, as required by OCGA § 9-16-12(f). The trial court dismissed the State's complaint, and the order specified that the assets held by the State should be paid into the court's registry until the appeal deadline expired or the judgment was affirmed.
While the State's appeal of the dismissal was pending, Client entered into a plea agreement in the related criminal case, which included an Alford plea to a single count of violating the Georgia RICO Act. Subsequently, the Patels withdrew their answers in the forfeiture case and consented to the forfeiture of the assets. The State then withdrew its appeal.
McDonald & Cody, along with Sliger and Maples, filed a notice of attorneys' lien and a motion to vacate the withdrawal of the Answers and Consents to forfeiture to enforce their contingency fee contract. The State moved to set aside the judgment dismissing the forfeiture complaint. The trial court granted the State's motion to set aside the judgment and denied the motion to vacate the withdrawal of answers and consents to forfeiture. The court also found that there was no valid and enforceable attorneys' lien.
On appeal, McDonald & Cody argued that the trial court erred in setting aside the final judgment and in finding that there was no valid and enforceable attorneys' lien. The Court of Appeals agreed with McDonald & Cody, reversing the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that the post-judgment withdrawal of their answers and consent to forfeiture could not be grounds for setting aside the judgment dismissing the forfeiture complaint, as these actions occurred after the judgment was entered.
Furthermore, the Court of Appeals determined that the attorneys' lien was perfected when the trial court entered the judgment dismissing the forfeiture complaint, regardless of whether the Clients ultimately recovered the assets. The court emphasized that an attorney's lien attaches to the fruits of the attorney's labor and skill, and it is perfected at the time of the ultimate recovery of the judgment by the client. The appellate court concluded that the trial court erred in finding that there was no valid and enforceable lien under OCGA § 15-19-14(c) 3. Forfeiture and Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
In the case of McDonald & Cody v. State of Georgia, the Court of Appeals of Georgia addressed a civil forfeiture action involving a law firm, McDonald & Cody, and their clients. The State of Georgia had filed a complaint for forfeiture in November 2018, alleging violations of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. The complaint listed several bank accounts belonging to the Clients that had been seized by the State. The Patels hired McDonald & Cody to handle the claims related to these seized accounts, and they signed contingency fee agreements in February 2019. Attorneys Sam Sliger and Steve Maples, associated with McDonald & Cody, represented the Patels in both the civil forfeiture and related criminal cases. McDonald & Cody filed answers on behalf of their Clients in the forfeiture action, seeking the return of the seized property. They moved to dismiss the forfeiture complaint due to the State's failure to schedule a bench trial within 60 days after the last claimant was served, as required by OCGA § 9-16-12(f). The trial court dismissed the State's complaint, and the order specified that the assets held by the State should be paid into the court's registry until the appeal deadline expired or the judgment was affirmed.
While the State's appeal of the dismissal was pending, Client entered into a plea agreement in the related criminal case, which included an Alford plea to a single count of violating the Georgia RICO Act. Subsequently, the Patels withdrew their answers in the forfeiture case and consented to the forfeiture of the assets. The State then withdrew its appeal.
McDonald & Cody, along with Sliger and Maples, filed a notice of attorneys' lien and a motion to vacate the withdrawal of the Answers and Consents to forfeiture to enforce their contingency fee contract. The State moved to set aside the judgment dismissing the forfeiture complaint. The trial court granted the State's motion to set aside the judgment and denied the motion to vacate the withdrawal of answers and consents to forfeiture. The court also found that there was no valid and enforceable attorneys' lien.
On appeal, McDonald & Cody argued that the trial court erred in setting aside the final judgment and in finding that there was no valid and enforceable attorneys' lien. The Court of Appeals agreed with McDonald & Cody, reversing the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that the post-judgment withdrawal of their answers and consent to forfeiture could not be grounds for setting aside the judgment dismissing the forfeiture complaint, as these actions occurred after the judgment was entered.
Furthermore, the Court of Appeals determined that the attorneys' lien was perfected when the trial court entered the judgment dismissing the forfeiture complaint, regardless of whether the Clients ultimately recovered the assets. The court emphasized that an attorney's lien attaches to the fruits of the attorney's labor and skill, and it is perfected at the time of the ultimate recovery of the judgment by the client. The appellate court concluded that the trial court erred in finding that there was no valid and enforceable lien under OCGA § 15-19-14(c) 3. Forfeiture and Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
Garcia v. State, 320 Ga. 426, 909 S.E.2d 442 (2024)
The case of Garcia v. The State was heard by the Supreme Court of Georgia, with the citation 320 Ga. 426, and the decision was issued on November 19, 2024. The case involved an interlocutory appeal by Manuel Garcia, which was initially granted but later dismissed as improvidently granted by the court.
In August 2023, law enforcement officers seized $236,350 in cash and a handgun which they claimed were contraband related to drug and firearm offenses. The State filed an in rem complaint for civil forfeiture against the property, naming Client as an owner or interest holder and listing his address in Florida. The State obtained an ex-parte order for service by publication under OCGA § 9-16-12 (b) (3), which allows for service by publication if an owner or interest holder is unknown or resides out of state. Sam Sliger challenged the constitutionality of OCGA § 9-16-12 (b) (3), arguing that it violates due process by permitting service by publication even when a person's address is known. The court noted that a similar due-process concern was raised in the case of Crowder v. State, where it was suggested that OCGA § 9-16-12 (b) (3) might implicate constitutional concerns regarding due process. The court in Crowder did not decide on the due-process issue because the trial court had not ruled on it, but it remanded the case for consideration of the claim. In this case, the trial court ruled on the due-process challenge, and the court acknowledged that such a challenge might have merit, as service only by publication generally does not meet due-process requirements when an interested party's name and address are known.
However, the court could not reach the constitutional question in this case because the trial court's order also directed service by certified mail to a Florida address, which the State followed. Service by certified mail generally satisfies due process, and the court concluded that this method provided notice reasonably calculated to apprise Client of the forfeiture proceeding. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal as improvidently granted, noting that the constitutional question regarding OCGA § 9-16-12 (b) (3) should be addressed in a case where it is properly presented.
The court also encouraged the General Assembly to consider amending OCGA § 9-16-12 (b) (3) to ensure it complies with due-process principles.
In August 2023, law enforcement officers seized $236,350 in cash and a handgun which they claimed were contraband related to drug and firearm offenses. The State filed an in rem complaint for civil forfeiture against the property, naming Client as an owner or interest holder and listing his address in Florida. The State obtained an ex-parte order for service by publication under OCGA § 9-16-12 (b) (3), which allows for service by publication if an owner or interest holder is unknown or resides out of state. Sam Sliger challenged the constitutionality of OCGA § 9-16-12 (b) (3), arguing that it violates due process by permitting service by publication even when a person's address is known. The court noted that a similar due-process concern was raised in the case of Crowder v. State, where it was suggested that OCGA § 9-16-12 (b) (3) might implicate constitutional concerns regarding due process. The court in Crowder did not decide on the due-process issue because the trial court had not ruled on it, but it remanded the case for consideration of the claim. In this case, the trial court ruled on the due-process challenge, and the court acknowledged that such a challenge might have merit, as service only by publication generally does not meet due-process requirements when an interested party's name and address are known.
However, the court could not reach the constitutional question in this case because the trial court's order also directed service by certified mail to a Florida address, which the State followed. Service by certified mail generally satisfies due process, and the court concluded that this method provided notice reasonably calculated to apprise Client of the forfeiture proceeding. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal as improvidently granted, noting that the constitutional question regarding OCGA § 9-16-12 (b) (3) should be addressed in a case where it is properly presented.
The court also encouraged the General Assembly to consider amending OCGA § 9-16-12 (b) (3) to ensure it complies with due-process principles.
Crispin v. State, 360 Ga. App. 485, 861 S.E.2d 444 (2021)
The case of Crispin et al. v. State of Georgia involves an in rem forfeiture action where the State of Georgia filed a civil forfeiture complaint against the asset owners. The case was heard by the Court of Appeals of Georgia, and the judgment was delivered on July 1, 2021.
Factual Background
The case arose from a drug investigation conducted by the Appalachian Regional Drug Enforcement Office and other law enforcement agencies. On February 2, 2018, a traffic stop involving the appellants led to the discovery of $9,584 in U.S. currency. On the same day, a search warrant executed at the appellants' residence uncovered marijuana and an additional $1,000 in cash.
Procedural Background
Following the seizure of assets on February 2, 2018, the State filed a verified complaint for forfeiture on March 30, 2018. The complaint listed various assets, including $56,253 in U.S. currency and ten firearms, and identified several owners and interest holders. The State managed to serve some of the individuals involved but failed to serve Crispin and Presnell. Despite this, an attorney entered an appearance on behalf of the appellants on August 17, 2018, and they filed answers to the forfeiture complaint, raising defenses such as lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficiency of service of process.
The trial court scheduled a hearing for October 19, 2018, to address the potential dismissal of the forfeiture. On that date, the appellants filed motions to dismiss, arguing that their counsel had received service of process in open court on August 17, 2018, and that no bench trial had occurred within the required 60 days. The trial court suggested that there had been no written acknowledgment of service, indicating that the appellants had not been properly served. The appellants filed a second motion to dismiss on April 17, 2019, reiterating their argument about the lack of a timely bench trial. Meanwhile, the State filed a motion to serve the appellants by publication, which the trial court initially granted but later vacated. The trial court eventually conducted a bench trial and entered a judgment on July 14, 2020, awarding the appellants' assets to the State.
Court of Appeals Decision
The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court found that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over the appellants because the State failed to personally serve them with process, as required by Georgia law. The purported service of process on the appellants' counsel was deemed ineffective, and there was no valid acknowledgment or waiver of service. Consequently, the trial court's order awarding the seized assets to the State was declared a nullity.
The appellate court did not address the appellants' remaining arguments regarding the lack of probable cause for the traffic stop, the State's failure to prove possession of a controlled substance, and the authority to search the vehicle without a warrant, as the lack of jurisdiction rendered these issues moot.
Factual Background
The case arose from a drug investigation conducted by the Appalachian Regional Drug Enforcement Office and other law enforcement agencies. On February 2, 2018, a traffic stop involving the appellants led to the discovery of $9,584 in U.S. currency. On the same day, a search warrant executed at the appellants' residence uncovered marijuana and an additional $1,000 in cash.
Procedural Background
Following the seizure of assets on February 2, 2018, the State filed a verified complaint for forfeiture on March 30, 2018. The complaint listed various assets, including $56,253 in U.S. currency and ten firearms, and identified several owners and interest holders. The State managed to serve some of the individuals involved but failed to serve Crispin and Presnell. Despite this, an attorney entered an appearance on behalf of the appellants on August 17, 2018, and they filed answers to the forfeiture complaint, raising defenses such as lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficiency of service of process.
The trial court scheduled a hearing for October 19, 2018, to address the potential dismissal of the forfeiture. On that date, the appellants filed motions to dismiss, arguing that their counsel had received service of process in open court on August 17, 2018, and that no bench trial had occurred within the required 60 days. The trial court suggested that there had been no written acknowledgment of service, indicating that the appellants had not been properly served. The appellants filed a second motion to dismiss on April 17, 2019, reiterating their argument about the lack of a timely bench trial. Meanwhile, the State filed a motion to serve the appellants by publication, which the trial court initially granted but later vacated. The trial court eventually conducted a bench trial and entered a judgment on July 14, 2020, awarding the appellants' assets to the State.
Court of Appeals Decision
The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court found that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over the appellants because the State failed to personally serve them with process, as required by Georgia law. The purported service of process on the appellants' counsel was deemed ineffective, and there was no valid acknowledgment or waiver of service. Consequently, the trial court's order awarding the seized assets to the State was declared a nullity.
The appellate court did not address the appellants' remaining arguments regarding the lack of probable cause for the traffic stop, the State's failure to prove possession of a controlled substance, and the authority to search the vehicle without a warrant, as the lack of jurisdiction rendered these issues moot.
Client Testimonials
“I was expecting to go to court for my case, but Sam resolved it before my court date so I never even had to go to court.”
Truett H.
“Sam did a wonderful job representing my daughter. We followed all his advice, and he was able to give her an outcome I did not think was achievable.”
Warren N.
Disclaimer: Testimonials and statements on this website are provided by past clients and reflect their individual experiences. Results depend on the specific facts and legal circumstances of each case. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Google Reviews
“He was able to help get my husband’s case pled to lesser charges, keep his license, and avoid jail time. I would recommend him 10 out of 10 times.”
Amanda S.
“Sam is a great attorney and is highly respected in the NE Georgia judicial community. I would not hesitate to recommend him.”
David H.
“Got me results better than I could have expected. The entire process was smooth and simple.”
Brady G.
Why Clients Trust North Georgia Legal
Jury trials in 60 Georgia counties
Graduate of the
National College for DUI Defense at Harvard Law School
Over 100 contested motions argued
Certified in DUI detection and field sobriety testing
Disclaimer: Testimonials and statements on this website are provided by past clients and reflect their individual experiences. Results depend on the specific facts and legal circumstances of each case. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Protect Your License.
Protect Your Record.
Protect Your Future.
Trust Note
🔒 100% Confidential. Your information is secure and never shared. By submitting, you agree to receive updates about your case. We respect your privacy.