Burkill v. State, 50790
Decision Date | 02 September 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 2,No. 50790,50790,2 |
Citation | 218 S.E.2d 453,135 Ga.App. 595 |
Parties | Mike BURKILL v. The STATE |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Bennett & Dantzler, Deryl D. Dantzler, Macon, for appellant.
Clarence H. Clay, Jr., Sol., John R. Sikes, Asst. Sol, James M. Wootan, Macon, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of possession of marijuana and appeals the judgment. The sole issue is whether or not defendant's Motion to Suppress should have been overruled.
The following facts were presented to the magistrate by typed affidavit: No other facts were related to the magistrate.
1. Appellant contends that there were insufficient facts presented to the magistrate to allow him to determine the credibility of the informant. It is not necessary that an averment of previous reliability be made before information provided by an informant can be acted upon. The question is whether the informant's present information is truthful and reliable. Meneghan v. State, 132 Ga.App. 380, 208 S.E.2d 150; United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 581, 91 S.Ct. 2075, 29 L.E.2d 723. This court in Meneghan considered that the informer had in his hands some of the contraband from the 'drop' made by appellants as a factor in determining the informant's reliability. Other factors considered were the detailed description of the vehicle and a statement that the informer was a personal friend of the officer. In the present case, the informer brought to the officer a marijuana plant, allegedly taken from the premises to be searched. He also provided a description of the premises and an exact number of marijuana plants located in a planter in the rear of the house.
In determining probable cause for the issuance of a warrant, we deal with practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable men, not legal technicians, act. United States v. Harris, sup...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Smith v. Shuman, 50788
-
Koehn v. State
...upon it. Davis v. State, 129 Ga.App. 158(3), 198 S.E.2d 913; Meneghan v. State, 132 Ga.App. 380(1), 208 S.E.2d 150; Burkill v. State, 135 Ga.App. 595(1), 218 S.E.2d 453. 2. It was not error to overrule the motion for a new Judgment affirmed. MARSHALL and McMURRAY, JJ., concur. ...