Hockman v. State, A97A0130
Decision Date | 22 May 1997 |
Docket Number | No. A97A0130,A97A0130 |
Citation | 226 Ga.App. 521,487 S.E.2d 102 |
Parties | , 97 FCDR 2097 HOCKMAN v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Jeffrey R. Sliz, Lawrenceville, for appellant.
Timothy G. Madison, District Attorney, Robin R. Riggs, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Defendant filed this appeal after his conviction for trafficking in methamphetamine in violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act. Defendant challenges the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that contraband found at his place of business was unlawfully seized pursuant to a search warrant that was inadequately supported by the affidavit of Narcotics Investigator Kelly Meredith. Investigator Meredith signed this affidavit on September 6, 1994, and the issuing magistrate signed the underlying search warrant on September 6, 1994. 1 Investigator Meredith's affidavit provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Held:
1. Perkins v. State, 220 Ga.App. 524(1), 469 S.E.2d 796. While Investigator Meredith's affidavit in the case sub judice is replete with conclusory allegations which do not establish "Source A's" reliability, Veasey v. State, 113 Ga.App. 187(3), 147 S.E.2d 515, the investigator's information regarding the controlled drug-buy at defendant's place of business provided probable cause for a search of that establishment. Perkins v. State, 220 Ga.App. 524, 525(2), 469 S.E.2d 796, supra. Defendant argues, however, that Investigator Meredith's general information as to the time of the controlled drug-buy does not support the magistrate's judgment that illegal drug activity was a reasonable probability at defendant's place of business when the search warrant issued on September 6, 1994. See Fowler v. State, 121 Ga.App. 22, 172 S.E.2d 447. Defendant suggests the investigator's affidavit should have included the controlled drug-buy's specific date and time. We do not agree.
" Dixon v. State, 197 Ga.App. 369, 370, 398 S.E.2d 428. In the case sub judice, the issuing magistrate signed the warrant for a search of defendant's place of business on September 6, 1994. The probative facts alleged in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wise v. State
...history, Kessler v. State, 221 Ga.App. 368, 371, 471 S.E.2d 313 (1996); that the informant was a drug user, Hockman v. State, 226 Ga.App. 521, 523(1), 487 S.E.2d 102 (1997) (physical precedent only); or that, in exchange for the information, the informant received payment, id., or favorable......
-
Starks v. State
...confirmed that illegal drugs were being sold at Starks's home by carrying out the first controlled buy. See Hockman v. State, 226 Ga. App. 521, 523(1), 487 S.E.2d 102 (1997) (physical precedent only); see Pettus v. State, 237 Ga.App. 143, 144-145, 514 S.E.2d 901 (1999) (affidavit based upon......
-
Clemons v. State, A02A1298.
...is material and the affiant knowingly or recklessly omits it, suppression of the seized material could result. (Punctuation omitted.) Hockman v. State8 (physical precedent This Court has recognized the value of information provided by a "concerned citizen." See Davis, supra at 37, 447 S.E.2......
-
Gilliard v. State, No. A05A0693.
...asserts that this information was material and known to Creel at the time he swore to the affidavit. Relying on Hockman v. State, 226 Ga.App. 521, 487 S.E.2d 102 (1997) (physical precedent only), he argues that the motion to suppress should have been granted on that basis. Hockman does affi......
-
The Broken Fourth Amendment Oath.
...the affiant, not of any nongovernmental informant."). (45.) Natapoff, supra note 16, at 46-54, 70-72. (46.) See, e.g., Hockman v. State, 487 S.E.2d 102, 104 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997) (holding that an officer "should" disclose payments made to an informant, but that omitting this information does ......