Marshall v. State
| Decision Date | 25 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 41700,No. 2,41700,2 |
| Citation | 147 S.E.2d 666,113 Ga.App. 143 |
| Parties | Ludella MARSHALL v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. (a) When a search warrant and affidavit upon which it is issued do not recite sufficient facts upon which a determination of probable cause could be made by the issuing magistrate, the burden is on the State to show that sufficient facts were submitted before the magistrate to establish the existence of probable cause.
(b) To support a finding of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, there must be presented by oath or affirmation to the issuing magistrate some of the underlying circumstances causing the officer applying for the warrant to believe that there is probable cause to search the premises and, if the officer relies on an informant, some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that his informant was reliable.
The defendant appeals from her conviction on an indictment charging that the defendant did 'keep, maintain, employ and carry on a certain scheme and device for the hazarding of money * * * called Bolita.'
Ralph L. Crawford, Savannah, for appellant.
Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Sol., Tom A. Edenfield, Asst. Sol., Savannah, for appellee.
1. One of the enumerations of error is that the trial court erred in overruling the defendant's motion to suppress evidence, which was renewed when the evidence was introduced at the trial. The ground of the objection to the evidence obtained by use of the warrant was that the warrant was not supported by proper affidavit. The following evidence was presented at the hearing on the motion: The search warrant recited that 'additional facts under oath have been submitted to (the magistrate) with reference to the location, possession and nature of such contraband.' The officer procuring the warrant testified that the 'additional facts' referred to in the warrant were those he testified to before the magistrate when he appeared before the Recorder's Court of Savannah to take out a warrant for search of the defendant's premises and person for lottery paraphernalia known as bolita; and that the facts he then disclosed to the magistrate of that court were that he had information from a reliable informer, from whom he had received true information before, that the defendant was selling bolita; that he and another officer had put the defendant's house under observation for two days and the first day in about 1 1/2 hours saw 12 people go in, and the second day in about 2 hours saw 7 people go into the house, and one of these people was a man known to the officer as a bolita operator.
( a). The Constitution of Georgia () 'forbids the issuance of * * * (a search) warrant unless there are facts constituting probable cause submitted to the magistrate for his judicial determination, and these must be supported by oath or affirmation.' Smoot v. State, 160 Ga. 744, 747, 128 S.E. 909, 910, 41 A.L.R. 1533. Both the United States Constitution and the Georgia Constitution provide: 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, particularly describing the place, or places, to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' Code § 2-116; Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, Article IV (Code § 1-804). (The differences in wording between the provisions of the United States and Georgia Constitutions are not significant.) What is necessary by way of oath or affirmation to support the requirement of probable cause for issuing a search warrant has been the subject of many court decisions. This court in Johnson v. State, 111 Ga.App. 298, 305, 141 S.E.2d 574, held after considering judicial precedents that when a search warrant and affidavit upon which it is issued do not recite sufficient facts upon which a determination of probable cause could be made by the issuing magistrate, the burden is on the State to show that sufficient facts were submitted before the magistrate to establish the existence of probable cause.
In Carson v. State, 221 Ga. 299, 144 S.E.2d 384, the Georgia Supreme Court stated that the affidavits considered in that case were the only basis for the issuance of the search warrants, so far as the records showed, and since they stated no facts or circumstances underlying the belief that the defendants 'were engaged in violation of the * * * laws of this state, did not furnish a sufficient basis for a finding of probable cause.' The opinion further stated that the case of Aguilar v. State of Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723, was controlling. It was decided in the Aguilar case that the search warrant, issued by a Texas justice of the peace, should not have been issued because the affidavit did not provide a sufficient basis for a finding of probable cause. The opinion states, however, that if other information than that contained in the affidavit 'had been appropriately presented to the magistrate, this would, of course, present an entirely different case.' Aguilar v. State of Texas, supra, 109, fn. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1511. The defendant's contention is that the information upon which the magistrate's determination of probable cause is based must appear on the face of the affidavit or warrant. The Georgia and United States Constitutions require only that the finding of probable cause be 'supported by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v. State
...to the magistrate before the warrant was issued. Veasey v. State, 113 Ga.App. 187, 147 S.E.2d 515 (1966); Marshall v. State, 113 Ga.App. 143(1a), 147 S.E.2d 666 (1966). As discussed above, part of the state's burden in the instant case was met by testimony from the issuing magistrates and t......
-
Butler v. State
...probable cause. Johnson v. State, 227 Ga. 387, 181 S.E.2d 42; Campbell v. State, 226 Ga. 883, 178 S.E.2d 257; Marshall v. State, 113 Ga.App. 143, 147 S.E.2d 666. The affidavit stated that burglary tools and firearms were to be searched for as 'tangible evidence of the commission of the crim......
-
Clyatt v. State
...from a reliable and confidential informant who had given him reliable information in the recent past (90 days). See Marshall v. State, 113 Ga.App. 143, 144(1) 147 S.E.2d 666; Pass v. State, 227 Ga. 730(6b), 182 S.E.2d 779; Thrall v. State, 122 Ga.App. 427, 428, 177 S.E.2d 192. The underlyin......
-
Burns v. State
...give sufficient information of the underlying circumstances from which he concluded that the informant was reliable. Marshall v. State, 113 Ga.App. 143(1), 147 S.E.2d 666; Landers v. State, 114 Ga.App. 687, 152 S.E.2d 431; Wood v. State, 118 Ga.App. 477, 164 S.E.2d 233. In his affidavit sho......