Garner v. State
| Decision Date | 14 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 46207,No. 1,46207,1 |
| Citation | 124 Ga.App. 33,182 S.E.2d 902 |
| Parties | James L. GARNER v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
A search warrant directed to a room in either one or another of two motels at different addresses in the same city and identified only by the statement that they will be registered in the name of a specified person will not authorize a search of two motel rooms in one of the motels registered in the name of another person not identified in the warrant.
Two motel rooms in the Howard Johnson Motel of Albany, Georgia, contiguous but not interconnecting, were searched on the night of October 23, 1970, by virtue of a search warrant which issued on October 22, and after the rooms had been kept under surveillance for about 25 hours. Heroin was recovered. The affidavit in support of the warrant sets out that affiant has reason to believe various narcotics are concealed
The warrant states that, the judge is 'satisfied that there is probable cause to believe that the property so described is being concealed on the person and premises above described,' referring to the person of Adell Williams and the premises of either one or the other of the motels: 'either of the above listed rented rooms will be in the name of the above listed subject,' again referring to Williams. (Emphasis supplied).
Two rooms in the Howard Johnson were in fact searched and Adell Williams, the defendant and others were arrested. The rooms were rented not in the name of Williams but in that of Willie Roy Thomas, which evidence on the motion to suppress shows to have been an unidentified 'arrested subject' referred to in the affidavit.
Hobart M. Hind, Albany, for appellant.
Robert W. Reynolds, Dist. Atty., Albany, for appellee.
We agree with the defendant that the 'place to be searched' is an unidentified room in one of two motels, and that there are a total of 111 rooms to which this description might possibly refer.
A premises description is sufficient if on its face it enables a prudent officer executing the warrant to locate the person and place definitely and with reasonable certainty. Adams v. State, 123 Ga.App. 206, 180 S.E.2d 262 and cit. In Adams, even though the street number was incorrectly shown, the apartment complex, building, apartment and tenant were given in such manner that the total description could refer to only one apartment and did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State
...and with reasonable certainty, without depending upon his discretion. Admas v. State, 123 Ga.App. 206, 180 S.E.2d 262; Garner v. State, 124 Ga.App. 33, 35, 182 S.E.2d 902. The State failed to meet this criterion in the case at The description in the present warrant of the place to be search......
-
Jackson v. State
...and with reasonable certainty, without depending upon his discretion. Adams v. State, 123 Ga.App. 206, 180 S.E.2d 262; Garner v. State, 124 Ga.App. 33, 35, 182 S.E.2d 902.' Jones v. State, 126 Ga.App. 841, 842, 192 S.E.2d 171, 173, ( c) The fact that 'Jose' was not present does not invalida......
-
Overstreet v. State
...certainty, without depending upon his discretion.' Jones v. State, 126 Ga.App. 841, 842, 192 S.E.2d 171, 173; Garner v. State, 124 Ga.App. 33, 35, 182 S.E.2d 902; Adams v. State, 123 Ga.App. 206, 180 S.E.2d 262. While the evidence shows that there were several apartment buildings in the vic......
-
Kelly v. State, 48124
...and it has been settled once and for all that the taint of illegal procurement forbids its use as evidence.' Garner v. State, 124 Ga.App. 33, 36, 182 S.E.2d 902, 905. The police had no search warrant and the lack of probable cause which invalidated the arrest therefore voids the search inci......