McMiken v. State, 47429
| Decision Date | 19 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 47429,47429,2 |
| Citation | 192 S.E.2d 716,127 Ga.App. 66 |
| Parties | Ray E. McMIKEN et al. v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Ben Lancaster, Cartersville, for appellants.
David N. Vaughan, Jr., Dist. Atty., Cartersville, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendants appeal their convictions and sentences for possession of gambling devices and possession of more than one quart of alcoholic liquor in a dry county.
Defendants' motion to suppress the evidence of whiskey and gambling devices, seized under a search warrant, and testimony related thereto, was overruled. Defendants contended that the warrant was illegal, there being no probable cause for the issuance of the warrant because the affidavit did not contain, inter alia, sufficient statements as to when the informers obtained the information reported by the informers, or when the informers reported the information reported to the informers or a sufficient showing that the information reported by the informers related to criminal activity closely related in time to the date of the affidavit. The affidavit does not set forth the time the informers obtained the information, the time the informers reported the information or the time the evidence was in the possession of the defendants. This court has repeatedly held that a 'prime element in the concept of probable cause is the time of the occurrence of the facts relied upon.' Fowler v. State, 121 Ga.App. 22, 23, 172 S.E.2d 447, 448; Windsor v. State, 122 Ga.App. 767, 768, 178 S.E.2d 751; Gilliam v. State, 124 Ga.App. 843, 186 S.E.2d 290. The trial court erred in overruling the defendants' motion to suppress.
Judgment reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Padilla
...that narcotics were then present in the car to be searched. Rosencranz v. United States, 356 F.2d 310 (1st Cir. 1966); McMiken v. State, 127 Ga.App. 66, 192 S.E.2d 716; Edwards v. State, 13 Md.App. 546, 284 A.2d 10; Jarvis v. State, 507 P.2d 918 (Okl.Cr.App.1973); Commonwealth v. Simmons, 4......
-
Bell v. State
...S.E.2d 447, supra; Windsor v. State, 122 Ga.App. 767, 178 S.E.2d 751; Gilliam v. State, 124 Ga.App. 843, 186 S.E.2d 290; McMiken v. State, 127 Ga.App. 66, 192 S.E.2d 716; Latten v. State, 127 Ga.App. 75, 192 S.E.2d Consequently, the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to sup......
-
State v. Rosenthal, 46538.
...So.2d 724 (1973); People v. Padilla, 182 Colo. 101, 511 P.2d 480 (1973); Pierson v. State, 338 A.2d 571 (Del.1975); McMiken v. State, 127 Ga.App. 66, 192 S.E.2d 716 (1972); State v. Oropeza, 97 Idaho 387, 545 P.2d 475 (1976); State v. Loder, 381 A.2d 290 (Me.1978); Williams v. State, 503 P.......
-
Pierson v. State
...time of occurrence of facts relied on. See, e.g., People v. Padilla, Colo.Supr., 511 P.2d 480 (1973); Walker, supra; McMiken v. State, 122 Ga.App. 66, 192 S.E.2d 716 (1972); Griffin v. State, Okl.Cr.App., 503 P.2d 567 This is so because 'The prime element in the concept or probable cause is......