---
title: Tracie Underwood v. State
collection: opinions
id: S23G0714
cite_as: Tracie Underwood v. State, 318 Ga. 259 (2024)
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23G0714
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23G0714.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23G0714/text
source_url: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10680390/tracie-underwood-v-state/
date: 2024-02-06
status: published
corpus_version: opinions-2026-09-14
license: Public record of the Supreme Court of Georgia, via CourtListener and the court's own website; see about.md
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/2024.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23A1024.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23A1018.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/index.md
omitted: opinion extras
omitted_chars: 1693
omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23G0714.md?full=1
docket: S23G0714
citation: 318 Ga. 259
court: Supreme Court of Georgia
case_type: criminal appeal
disposition: Writ of certiorari vacated and petition denied
vote: All the Justices concur, except Pinson, J., not participating
word_count: 230
date_filed_source: courtlistener
citations:
  - 910 S.E.2d 339
record_source: courtlistener
legal_areas:
  - criminal law
  - constitutional law
upstream_id: "10680390"
summaries_model: claude-sonnet-5
---

# Tracie Underwood v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia, docket S23G0714, filed 2024-02-06, 318 Ga. 259.

## Opinion

318 Ga. 259 FINAL COPY

S23G0714. UNDERWOOD v. THE STATE.

ORDER OF THE COURT.

We granted certiorari primarily to address the question of whether suppression of evidence is an available remedy for violations of OCGA § 17-5-27. However, after reviewing the full record in this case, we have concluded that we cannot reach that legal issue. Specifically, after careful consideration of the full record, the briefs of the parties, and oral argument, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it concluded that law enforcement’s entry into Petitioner’s house was lawful. As a result, whether OCGA § 17-5-30 provides a suppression remedy is not an issue that must be decided here. Because the remaining question on certiorari—whether law enforcement’s entry into Petitioner’s house violated OCGA § 17-5- 27, as distinct from the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution—is fact-specific and thus has little gravity outside the context of this case, the Court has determined that the writ of certiorari issued in Case No. S23G0714 was improvidently granted. Accordingly, the writ is vacated, and the petition for certiorari in Case No. S23C0714 is denied.

All the Justices concur, except Pinson, J., not participating.

Ordered February 6, 2024.

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia — 366 Ga. App.

876.

Kristin C. M. Waller, for appellant.

J. Bradley Smith, District Attorney, Patrick A. Najjar,

Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

## Summaries written by Georgia Commons

The following was written by claude-sonnet-5 from the opinion above and is not part of the court's opinion. Quote the opinion, not the summary.

The Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed its own review of a search dispute, deciding it granted review too soon because the trial court's finding that police lawfully entered the petitioner's house was not clearly wrong.

### Plain-language summary

A man challenged evidence found after police entered his house, arguing the entry violated a Georgia statute governing how officers must announce themselves before entering a home, O.C.G.A. § 17-5-27. The trial court had ruled that the entry was lawful, and the Court of Appeals of Georgia agreed. The Supreme Court of Georgia took up the case mainly to decide a bigger legal question: whether evidence can ever be thrown out (suppressed) just because police broke that knock-and-announce statute, separate from any Fourth Amendment violation.
After reviewing the full record, briefs, and oral argument, the court concluded it could not say the trial court was wrong that the entry was lawful in the first place. Because there was no violation of the statute to remedy, the broader suppression question did not need to be answered here. The court decided it had granted review too hastily and dismissed the case.

### Holding, as summarized

The court held that because the trial court's finding that police lawfully entered the petitioner's house could not be shown to be erroneous, the question of whether O.C.G.A. § 17-5-27 supports a suppression remedy did not need to be decided, and the writ of certiorari was improvidently granted.

### Disposition

Writ of certiorari vacated and petition denied. All the Justices concur, except Pinson, J., not participating.

### Why it matters

The decision leaves unresolved whether Georgia's knock-and-announce statute can ever justify throwing out evidence, so trial courts, prosecutors, and defense lawyers statewide still lack clear guidance on that question until another case squarely presents it.

> The summarized reasoning, checked quotes, suggested questions, and the CourtListener opinion records (1,693 characters) are at https://georgiacommons.org/opinions/S23G0714.md?full=1