Mincey v. State
| Decision Date | 19 November 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 73266,73266 |
| Citation | 350 S.E.2d 852,180 Ga.App. 898 |
| Parties | MINCEY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Alan P. Layne, Lyons, for appellant.
Richard A. Malone, Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Defendant was convicted of two counts of violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act () and following the denial of his motion for new trial, he appeals. Held:
1. In his first enumeration of error, defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress. The challenged warrant authorized the search of a mobile home occupied by defendant, also known as "Big Lou." Quantities of cocaine and marijuana were seized during the search. In the motion to suppress, defendant attacked the adequacy of the affidavit upon which the warrant was issued.
In pertinent part, the affidavit read:
State v. Hockman, 171 Ga.App. 504, 505, 320 S.E.2d 241.
The "two-pronged test" was abandoned, however, in favor of the "totality of the circumstances" standard enunciated in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527. As it is said: "In Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (103 SC 2317, 76 LE2d 527) (1983) the United States Supreme Court held that the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant is to be determined, not according to the 'two-pronged test' established in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (84 SC 1509, 12 LE2d 723) (1964) and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (89 SC 584, 21 LE2d 637) (1969), but rather in the light of the 'totality of the circumstances' made known to the magistrate. Subsequently, in Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S. 727 (104 SC 2085, 80 LE2d 721) (1984), the Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in Gates, and emphasized the rejection of an 'after-the-fact, de novo (probable cause) scrutiny' by reviewing courts. Instead, the Court held that reviewing courts must decide only whether the information, viewed as a whole, provided a substantial basis for the magistrate's finding of probable cause. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gunsby v. State, A00A2418.
...244 Ga.App. 212, 213(1), 535 S.E.2d 270 (2000). 14. Butler, supra, 192 Ga.App. at 712(1), 386 S.E.2d 371. 15. Mincey v. State, 180 Ga.App. 898, 900(1), 350 S.E.2d 852 (1986). 16. Id. 17. 192 Ga.App. 87, 383 S.E.2d 640 (1989). 18. Huntley, supra, 244 Ga.App. at 214(2), 535 S.E.2d 270; see Pi......
-
Davis v. State, A94A0659
...should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Mincey v. State, 180 Ga.App. 898, 900(1), 350 S.E.2d 852 (1986); Munson, supra 211 Ga.App. at 83, 438 S.E.2d While our task is not to encourage minimal compliance with the standa......
-
Bragg v. State, A01A0091.
...supra, 268 Ga. at 787(7), 493 S.E.2d 157; accord State v. Towe, 246 Ga.App. 808, 811(1), 541 S.E.2d 423 (2000); Mincey v. State, 180 Ga.App. 898, 900(1), 350 S.E.2d 852 (1986). 10. State v. Wesson, 237 Ga.App. 789, 791, 516 S.E.2d 826 (1999); see Bellamy v. State, 243 Ga.App. 575, 578(1)(b)......
-
Adams v. State
...should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Mincey v. State, 180 Ga.App. 898, 900, 350 S.E.2d 852 (1986). Under these standards, the information in the affidavit obtained from the informant was sufficient to establish prob......