Liskey v. State, 60548
| Decision Date | 08 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 60548,60548 |
| Citation | 156 Ga.App. 45,274 S.E.2d 89 |
| Parties | LISKEY et al. v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Kenneth Cail, M. E. Geary, Savannah, for appellants.
Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Interlocutory appeal was granted in this case on the single issue of the trial court's denial of defendants' motion to suppress evidence taken during the execution of a search warrant. Held :
1. The written motion to suppress alleged the search and seizure were illegal because the warrant was issued without a showing of sufficient probable cause; because the time and manner of execution of the warrant were improper; because the seizure was too broad and not in conformity with the directions of the issuing judge as to the items to be searched for and seized; because the affidavit was falsely sworn to; and because the search was a general search.
A suppression hearing was held. The transcript of the hearing contains only the testimony of the officer who made the affidavit for the warrant and describes only the probable cause in the affidavit he made for the warrant. Although it is apparent from the officer's testimony that a warrant was issued, a copy of the warrant and affidavit is not in the record, nor was it introduced or otherwise identified in the suppression hearing. There is no indication that the warrant and affidavit were ever examined by the trial judge.
Code Ann. § 27-313 (Ga.L.1966, pp. 567, 571) provides that
In this case, the state presented evidence only on the issue of probable cause for the warrant. The warrant and affidavit were not produced nor any evidence on the time and manner of the execution of the warrant or the scope of the search and the property seized.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watts v. State
...State v. Slaughter, supra at 439, 315 S.E.2d 865; Bartlett v. State, 165 Ga.App. 18, 19(1), 299 S.E.2d 68 (1983); Liskey v. State, 156 Ga.App. 45, 46(1), 274 S.E.2d 89 (1980). Even if the challenge to the warrant is not based upon one of the statutory grounds, the State's burden of producin......
-
Watts v. State, A00A1084.
...contend that the facts contained in the affidavit were insufficient to support the issuance of a warrant. Compare Liskey v. State, 156 Ga. App. 45-46(1), 274 S.E.2d 89 (1980); Bartlett v. State, 165 Ga.App. 18-19(1), 299 S.E.2d 68 ...
-
Baez v. State
... ... Mincey, 167 Ga.App. 850(2), 308 S.E.2d 18; Reddish v. State, 161 Ga.App. 170, 288 S.E.2d 266; Liskey v. State, 156 Ga.App. 45, 46(1), 274 ... S.E.2d 89; Bland v. State, 141 Ga.App. 858, 234 S.E.2d 692), and that evidence must be suppressed under ... ...
-
Reddish v. State, 62801
...we must look to the transcript of the suppression hearing to determine whether the state has met its burden of proof. Liskey v. State, 156 Ga.App. 45(1), 274 S.E.2d 89; Bland v. State, 141 Ga.App. 858, 234 S.E.2d 692. Having done so, we must conclude that the testimony adduced at the hearin......