Mize v. State
Decision Date | 22 January 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 69008,69008 |
Parties | MIZE v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Thomas M. Spence, Atlanta, for appellant.
Robert E. Wilson, Dist. Atty., Robert E. Statham III, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Appellant appeals from his conviction of three counts of violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act.
1. Appellant enumerates as error the denial of his motion to suppress physical evidence obtained when his residence was searched pursuant to a search warrant. Appellant contends that the affidavit supporting the warrant was defective. The affidavit stated: It was later determined that appellant's name was not Steven Thomas Mize, and that appellant had no record of previous arrests. Because the arrest information did not apply to appellant, he contends that the magistrate's finding of probable cause was without proper foundation.
In making a determination as to probable cause pursuant to the "totality of the circumstances" test enunciated in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), " State v. Stephens, 252 Ga. 181, 182, 311 S.E.2d 823 (1984).
Applying those principles to the facts of the case at bar, we find that the search warrant was properly issued. The affidavit supporting the warrant gave reasons for the affiant's belief in the informant's reliability, and it stated specifically how the informant obtained his knowledge. The time period was set forth in the affidavit, so as to show that the information was not stale. Moreover, the affidavit established that the affiant had taken steps to verify the data provided by the informant. The affidavit was sufficient to show probable cause to issue a search warrant on the basis of the informant's information. Choice v. State, 168 Ga.App. 28, 308 S.E.2d 1 (1983); Johnson v. State, 164 Ga.App. 501, 503(3), 297 S.E.2d 38 (1982); Shaner v. State, 153 Ga.App. 694, 699-700, 266 S.E.2d 338 (1980). Since the affidavit was sufficient to support the magistrate's finding of probable cause without regard to the surplus information concerning the prior arrests of Steven Thomas Mize, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to the search warrant. See Roth v. State, 164 Ga.App. 347, 297 S.E.2d 107 (1982).
We note that this is not a case in which the affidavit supporting the search warrant contained false statements or statements made in reckless disregard of the truth. The affidavit correctly stated that "a Steve Mize" received his telephone bills at the specified address and that "a Steven Thomas Mize" had previously been arrested for drug-related offenses. The affiant did not falsely swear that appellant had previously been arrested. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the affiant testified that at the time he was compiling material for the affidavit, he knew appellant only as Steve Mize, and he did not know whether appellant was the same Steve Mize who had been arrested in the past. He merely included in his affidavit all of the information which he had gleaned. There was no evidence that material misrepresentations were...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Robinson v. State, s. 72265
...arrests and convictions. Applying Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) and Mize v. State, 173 Ga.App. 327, 328, 326 S.E.2d 782 (1985), we find no C. Citing Nichols v. State, 17 Ga.App. 593, 87 S.E. 817 (1916), appellant contends that the search warrant was ......
-
Bradford v. State
...Wells v. State, 180 Ga.App. 133(3), 348 S.E.2d 681 (1986); State v. Farmer, 177 Ga.App. 18, 338 S.E.2d 489 (1985); Mize v. State, 173 Ga.App. 327(1), 326 S.E. 782 (1985). A confidential informant's veracity (or reliability) and the basis of his purported knowledge are "closely intertwined i......
-
State v. Farmer
...exist after reasonable and proper inquiry." [Cits.]' State v. Stephens, 252 Ga. 181, 182, 311 S.E.2d 823 (1984)." Mize v. State, 173 Ga.App. 327, 328(1), 326 S.E.2d 782 (1985). Our Supreme Court has cautiously read Illinois v. Gates, recognizing it as "a rule of subjectivity. One judge's 'p......
-
Watkins v. State
...(1996). On review, our only concern is that there was a "substantial basis" for concluding probable cause existed. Mize v. State, 173 Ga.App. 327, 326 S.E.2d 782 (1985). The record shows that when authorities applied for the warrant, they knew that a .22 caliber bullet caused the victim's h......