Grant v. State

Decision Date15 November 1973
Docket NumberNos. 48620-48625,No. 1,s. 48620-48625,1
Citation130 Ga.App. 237,202 S.E.2d 675
PartiesWillie V. GRANT v. The STATE (two cases). Jeffery L. HOOPER v. The STATE (two cases). Sherryl L. MILLER v. The STATE (two cases)
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Robert S. Whitelaw, Atlanta, for appellants.

William H. Ison, Dist. Atty., J. W. Bradley, Jonesboro, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

BELL, Chief Judge.

The defendants in these cases appeal from the denial of their motions to suppress evidence. The question is the sufficiency of the affidavit to show probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. Held:

1. The affidavit was based on an informer's hearsay and was subscribed by the affiant on October 4, 1972. The affiant stated that the facts were received from the informer on September 30, 1972, who advised that he had seen marijuana and capsules or pills in the premises sought to be searched on September 30, 1972. This five day interval between the date of the affidavit and the date of the information will not render the warrant invalid on the ground that the information was stale. Covington v. State, 129 Ga.App. 150, 199 S.E.2d 348; Davis v. State, 129 Ga.App. 158, 198 S.E.2d 913.

2. The person and the place to be searched was described in the affidavit and the warrant as Apartment No. P12, 1840 Sullivan Road, College Park, Clayton County, Georgia, occupied by 'Lynn Hopper,' one of the defendants. It was determined after execution of the warrant that the name of this defendant-tenant was 'Lynn Hooper.' The description of the premises was sufficient to enable a prudent officer executing the warrant to locate the place definitely and with reasonable certainty without depending upon the use of discretion. Adams v. State, 123 Ga.App. 206, 180 S.E.2d 262. The misspelling of the last name of the defendant, Hooper, under the facts present here, is of no consequence.

3. The facts and circumstances contained in the affidavit to show probable cause were based on an informer's hearsay. The affidavit stated that the informant had within the past thirty days given information that caused the arrest of two persons for possession of stolen property; that defendant Hooper had stolen property in her apartment taken in a burglary in College Park, Georgia; and also the informer 'saw marijuana and some type of red capsule pills' in the apartment on September 30, 1972. The history of dealing with the informant was a sufficient reason to show the latter's reliability. Sams v. State, 121 Ga.App. 46, 172 S.E.2d 473; Thrall v. State, 122 Ga.App. 427, 177 S.E.2d 192. As to the balance of the affidavit the information concerning the stolen property taken in a burglary would if left...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State v. Groves
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • 13 Diciembre 1991
    ...which occurred 6 days before issuance of the search warrant, were contained in the search warrant affidavit); Grant v. State, 130 Ga.App. 237, 202 S.E.2d 675 (1973) (according to the search warrant affidavit, an informant saw marijuana on the premises 5 days before issuance of the search wa......
  • Dugan v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 7 Enero 1974
    ...traffic by several anonymous phone calls would substantiate the magistrate's conclusion that probable cause exists. See Grant v. State, 130 Ga.App. 237, 202 S.E.2d 675 where an affidavit given on similar facts was held to show sufficient probable 'Recital of some of the underlying circumsta......
  • Bryan v. State, s. 51292
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 5 Enero 1976
    ...contention that the document is a 'general warrant' is without merit. Jackson v. State, 129 Ga.App. 901, 201 S.E.2d 816; Grant v. State, 130 Ga.App. 237, 202 S.E.2d 675. ( B) Did probable cause exist for the issuance of the warrant? The affidavit's recitation that the informer has given inf......
  • Giles v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 8 Marzo 1979
    ...warrant was based was not stale. That period was personal observation at the defendant's apartment "within a week." In Grant v. State, 130 Ga.App. 237(1), 202 S.E.2d 675, there was a "five day interval between the date of the affidavit and the date of the information" and we held this perio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT