Knowles v. State
| Decision Date | 07 September 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 46192,No. 1,46192,1 |
| Citation | 183 S.E.2d 617,124 Ga.App. 377 |
| Parties | Billy KNOWLES v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Cook & Palmour, A. Cecil Palmour, Summerville, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. While an affidavit that the affiants have received reliable information from a creditable person and do believe that certain illegal acts have been committed and that a certain person or persons are in possession of the fruits of such illegal act is not sufficient to show probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant (Carson v. State ex rel. Price, 221 Ga. 299, 304, 144 S.E.2d 384; Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723), and * * *' Aquilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 1514, 12 L.Ed.2d 723; yet, where, as in the present case, the underlying circumstances on which the warrant is sought and upon which the informant concluded the stolen articles sought were where he claimed them to be is disclosed in the affidavit, the fact that the circumstances involved hearsay information is immaterial so long as the information was sufficient to show probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. The trial court did not err in refusing to suppress the evidence obtained by the search.
2. Where, upon the execution of a search warrant authorizing the search of the person, premises and automobiles of the defendant for described stolen items, the defendant, prior to his arrest, upon being asked where the keys to his automobile were, replied that his brother had them, and the keys subsequently on search of the defendant's person were found in defendant's pocket and the stolen items found in the trunk of his automobile, at which point he was advised of his constitutional rights, testimony by the officers as to defendant's statement that his brother had the keys was not inadmissible as being an admission obtained in violation of the ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bryan v. State, s. 51292
...given is substantially the same as the charges approved in Sanford v. State, 129 Ga.App. 357(2), 199 S.E.2d 560, Knowles v. State, 124 Ga.App. 377, 378(3), 183 S.E.2d 617, and Craft v. State, 124 Ga.App. 57, 59(6), 183 S.E.2d 37. See also Byrd v. Hopper,234 Ga. 248, 215 S.E.2d 251. The jury......
-
Selph v. State, 53375
...the defendant into the pickup truck cannot be proved nor inferred simply from recent possession of the stolen revolver. Knowles v. State, 124 Ga.App. 377, 183 S.E.2d 617. (Emphasis supplied.) Although it is normally not error to refuse to direct a verdict in a criminal case, where the state......
-
Wells v. State, 57661
...for burglary cannot stand. Moreover, entry cannot be inferred from mere recent possession of stolen goods. Knowles v. State, 124 Ga.App. 377, 183 S.E.2d 617 (1971). Appellant asserts that nothing in the record establishes the element of entry. We do not agree. In response to the question, "......
-
Maddox v. State, 49957
...drawn not 'by a neutral and detached magistrate' as the Constitution requires, but instead, by a police officer . . .' Knowles v. State, 124 Ga.App. 377, 183 S.E.2d 617, quoting Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723. 'Where the hearsay of an informer is relied upon t......