Danford v. State
| Decision Date | 07 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 49851,49851,3 |
| Citation | 212 S.E.2d 501,133 Ga.App. 890 |
| Parties | Christopher DANFORD v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Schreiber, Rozier & Thomas, C. Edwin Rozier, Waycross, for appellant.
Dewey Hayes, Dist. Atty., Douglas, M. C. Pritchard, Asst. Dist. Atty., Waycross, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
A motion to suppress evidence was made in this case involving possession of illegal drugs. Christopher Danford contends that the search warrant was issued on stale and insufficient information, whthout probable cause, and consequently the search of his automobile that yielded the contraband was illegal. It is our judgment there is no merit in this contention.
The 'probable cause' portion of the officer's affidavit here states in material part: 'Informant personally overheard a conversation between Christopher Danford and other unidentified negro males stating that Danford would be making a trip to Florida on the twelfth (12th) day of May for the purposes of obtaining drugs, namely heroin, which is to be transported back to Waycross for distribution by Christopher Danford in the above described vehicle sometime during the afternoon or evening hours of this date May 12, 1973.' Obviously the criminal activity referred to in the affidavit had not taken place at the time the informer gave his tip, and the informer was alerting the police as to criminal transactions which would take place in the future. Although in this case it would have been very easy for the affiant to have stated the time the informer overheard the conversation, he did state when the illegal arrival would be, which was more relevant for interception and apprehension.
Lewis v. State, 126 Ga.App. 123, 128, 190 S.E.2d 123, 127 (Emphasis supplied.) Accord, Butler v. State, 127 Ga.App. 539, 540, 194 S.E.2d 261; Covington v. State, 129 Ga.App. 150, 199 S.E.2d 348; People v. Nelson, 171 Cal.App.2d 356, 340 P.2d 718; Griffin v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 421, 246 P.2d 424; Hanson v. State, 55 Okl.Cr. 138, 26 P.2d 436; Alexander v. State, 123 Tex.Cr.R. 65, 57 S.W.2d 157; Borras v. State, 229 So.2d 244 (Fla.). The 'stalenes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Womack
...Court, 12 Cal.App.3d 575, 90 Cal.Rptr. 682, 686 (Ct.App.1970); Bernie v. State, 524 So.2d 988, 991 (Fla.1988); Danford v. State, 133 Ga.App. 890, 212 S.E.2d 501, 501-02 (Ga.1975); State v. Wright, 115 Idaho 1043, 772 P.2d 250, 256-57, 258 (Idaho Ct.App.1989) (main opinion, Swanstrom, J., sp......
-
Ex parte Oswalt
...(1974); People v. Sousa, 18 Cal.App.4th 549, 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 264 (1993); Bernie v. State, 524 So.2d 988 (Fla.1988); Danford v. State, 133 Ga.App. 890, 212 S.E.2d 501 (1975); People v. Brake, 208 Mich.App. 233, 527 N.W.2d 56 (1994); State v. Morrison, 243 Neb. 469, 500 N.W.2d 547 (1993); Stat......
-
Shaner v. State
...2. Arguments that the informant's tip failed to demonstrate that the information was not "stale" are without merit. Danford v. State, 133 Ga.App. 890, 212 S.E.2d 501 (1975). 3. Having found that the affidavit and sworn testimony established probable cause for the search, we do not address t......
-
Luck v. State
...use of the former "this" occasion indicates present tense and the latter "previous" indicates past tense. Compare Danford v. State, 133 Ga.App. 890, 212 S.E.2d 501 (1975), where "is now" was held as indicating the present tense, and the information was held not to be stale. A common sense e......