State v. Mickel: The Georgia Supreme Court Reinforces the Duty of Trial Courts to Enter Comprehensive Findings of Fact in Probable-Cause Suppression Rulings

1. Introduction

State v. Mickel, S25A0255, decided by the Supreme Court of Georgia on 10 June 2025, stems from the shooting death of Michael Anthony Thomas and the subsequent warrantless detention and interrogation of the appellee, David Mickel. After the trial court suppressed Mickel’s statements as the “fruit of the poisonous tree” of an allegedly unlawful arrest, the State appealed. The Supreme Court did not decide whether probable cause in fact existed; instead, it vacated the suppression order and remanded, holding that the trial court’s sparse factual findings were insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review. Hence, the principal issue and ultimate holding concern how a trial court must articulate its findings when it suppresses evidence on Fourth-Amendment grounds, rather than whether the Fourth Amendment was actually violated in this case.

Key Facts

Thomas was assaulted and ultimately killed after an altercation on a MARTA bus.
Using surveillance stills, officers located Mickel near his workplace, approached him with guns drawn, handcuffed and searched him, and drove him to the station where he waived Miranda rights and provided statements.
The trial court, crediting officers’ testimony that they lacked probable cause when they first seized Mickel, suppressed the statements.
On appeal, the Supreme Court found the trial court’s two orders (Aug. 19 and Aug. 28 2024) too conclusory and internally inconsistent to allow review.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Georgia unanimously vacated the portions of the trial court’s orders suppressing Mickel’s custodial statements and remanded for further proceedings. The Court held that:

The trial court’s limited findings—identification of Mickel from surveillance footage, evidence of an attack, Mickel’s possession of a firearm, and Thomas’s later death—were insufficient to reveal the court’s reasoning regarding reasonable suspicion versus probable cause.
Without explicit credibility determinations or a clear explanation of what facts were accepted or rejected, the appellate court could not perform its de novo legal analysis.
Accordingly, consistent with prior precedent (e.g., Tatum, Williams, and Hughes), remand for detailed fact-finding is the appropriate remedy.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) – Governs custodial interrogation and waiver of rights; relevant to the admissibility of Mickel’s statements.
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) – Reaffirms that probable cause is evaluated objectively, not by officers’ subjective beliefs; used by the State to argue the trial court erred by focusing on officers’ testimony that they lacked probable cause.
State v. Copeland, 310 Ga. 345 (2020) – Lists the three “tiers” of police-citizen encounters; framework employed to categorize Mickel’s seizure as an arrest requiring probable cause.
Westbrook v. State, 308 Ga. 92 (2020) & Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (1979) – Articulate the classic definition of probable cause applied by the Court.
District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48 (2018) – Emphasizes evaluating “totality of the circumstances” from the perspective of a reasonable officer.
Caffee v. State, 303 Ga. 557 (2018) – Explains “fair probability” standard.
Hughes v. State, 296 Ga. 744 (2015) – Clarifies the objective nature of probable cause and establishes that uncontradicted testimony may be disbelieved by a fact-finder; cited to show the trial court’s prerogative in assessing credibility.
Lumpkin v. State, 310 Ga. 139 (2020); Douglas v. State, 303 Ga. 178 (2018) – Set the clear-error/de novo framework for reviewing suppression rulings.
State v. Lopez-Cardona, 319 Ga. 222 (2024) – Limits appellate review to facts expressly found by the trial court.
Tatum v. State, 319 Ga. 187 (2024); Williams v. State, 301 Ga. 60 (2017) – Both authorize remand when factual findings are too sparse for review.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court applied a two-step analytical structure typical in Fourth-Amendment appeals:

Identify the governing legal standards. An arrest must be supported by objective probable cause; reasonable suspicion suffices only for a brief “tier-two” detention.
Apply those standards to the historical facts. Here, the Court could not confidently execute this step because the trial court’s orders failed to specify: (a) which parts of officers’ testimony the court credited; (b) how it weighed surveillance footage descriptions versus the absence of the actual video in evidence; (c) whether the possibility of self-defense (referenced in Mickel’s spontaneous statement) diminished probable cause.

Because factual findings are the exclusive province of the trial court, and appellate courts are bound to work with express findings only, the Supreme Court had no choice but to remand for clarification.

3.3 Potential Impact

Sharper Trial-Court Orders. Georgia trial judges must now ensure that suppression orders—particularly those addressing probable cause—contain granular findings of fact and explicit credibility determinations. Orders that merely list ultimate conclusions will be vulnerable to vacatur and remand.
Prosecution & Defense Strategy. Prosecutors are incentivized to introduce tangible evidence (e.g., actual video files) rather than rely on agent testimony; defense counsel, conversely, will be attentive to preserving the record and highlighting gaps that could require remand.
Clarification of Self-Defense in Probable Cause. The Court flagged—without resolving—the unsettled question of whether an apparent self-defense claim negates probable cause. Future Georgia cases may tackle this directly.
Appellate Efficiency. By reiterating rigorous findings as a prerequisite for review, the opinion seeks to reduce piecemeal appeals and the need for repetitive remands.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Probable Cause – A commonsense, practical standard meaning there is a “fair probability” a person committed (or is committing) a crime. It is less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt but more than mere suspicion.
Reasonable Suspicion – A lower threshold than probable cause; requires objective, articulable facts suggesting criminal activity. It justifies brief investigative stops but not full arrests.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree – A doctrine excluding evidence (and any derivative evidence, like statements) obtained through an initial constitutional violation, here an allegedly unlawful arrest.
Objective vs. Subjective Standard – Courts assess what a hypothetical reasonable officer could conclude from the facts, not what the actual officers personally thought.
Remand for Findings – When appellate courts lack the factual foundation to perform legal analysis, they send the case back to the trial court to create or clarify findings.

5. Conclusion

State v. Mickel does not establish a new substantive rule of search-and-seizure law, but it powerfully reaffirms two procedural imperatives: (1) trial courts must articulate detailed, explicit findings of fact—including credibility determinations—when ruling on motions implicating the Fourth Amendment, and (2) appellate courts will not speculate or fill in gaps; they will remand if the record is inadequate. Practitioners should treat the opinion as a roadmap: build a complete evidentiary record, insist on meticulous orders, and recognize that unresolved factual ambiguities will impede appellate review. Going forward, the judgment should sharpen suppression litigation in Georgia and may influence courts in other jurisdictions wrestling with similar fact-finding deficiencies.