Moore v. State
| Decision Date | 30 January 1973 |
| Citation | 195 S.E.2d 275,128 Ga.App. 20 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Glenn Zell, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Joel M. Feldman, Darryl Cohen, Morris H. Rosenberg, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Matthews, an intelligence agent in the district attorney's office, arranged with Crosby and Haskins to apprehend Moore in the act of selling heroin. Matthews was informed on a Saturday morning that the sale would take place that afternoon at the end of a park pier and that the defendant would be dressed in a red shirt and black pants with fishing gear and would be accompanied by a look-out. He made four attempts to locate as many judges for the purpose of obtaining a search warrant without success; then, time running out, he drove with Crosby and Haskins to the park and arranged that when they ascertained that Moore had the heroin Haskins would take his shirt off.
Moore, dressed as described and carrying a paper bag and fishing rod, was observed by the pier, with another man though to be the look-out nearby. Crosby and Haskins walked out on the dock with him and laid the bag down about eighteen inches from his foot saying, 'Here it is.' Crosby stated he would get the money out of the car trunk and Haskins took off his shirt. Matthews then came forward and made the arrest. Held:
The motion to suppress evidence of the heroin contained in the bag was properly denied. We do not consider either the fact that Moore denied ownership of the bag to Matthews or that Matthews looked in it before making the arrest crucial to a decision in the case. Crosby and Haskins were more than mere informants since they obtained the admission from Moore, assisted in the arrest, and Crosby testified to these facts.
Under Code § 27-207 an officer may arrest where the offense is committed in his presence or where there is likely to be a failure of justice for want of an officer to issue a warrant. Under Code § 27-211 any person may arrest without a warrant where the offense is committed in his presence. An offense is 'within the presence' of the arresting party where, although he cannot be cognizant of it by means of his senses, the defendant actually admits that it is in fact being so committed. 6 C.J.S. Arrest § 5, p. 582; Kirby v. State (),217 So.2d 619; Cowan v. Com., 308 Ky. 842, 215 S.W.2d 989; Kershaw v. State, 199 Md. 135, 85 A.2d 783; Utah...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State, 55906
...in concluding that the record and transcript in this case indicate probable cause for the arrest of the appellant. Moore v. State, 128 Ga.App. 20, 195 S.E.2d 275. Though there was a conflict in the evidence as to whether threats were used, whether there was a promise of reward for the state......
-
Glazner v. State, 68080
...the officer, then outside his jurisdiction, to act as a private person and effect a citizen's arrest. OCGA § 17-4-60; Moore v. State, 128 Ga.App. 20, 21, 195 S.E.2d 275. Lastly, illegality of an arrest does not of itself entitle one to acquittal or dismissal of charges. Chandler v. State, 1......
-
Fulton Nat. Bank v. Delco Corp.
... ... State of Pa. v. Curtiss Nat. Bank of Miami Springs, Fla., 5 Cir., 427 F.2d 395 involving a cashier's check and Krom v. Chemical Bank New York Trust Co., ... ...
-
Chappell v. State, 68185
...level of proof required to prove guilt at trial. Moreover, hearsay may serve as the foundation for probable cause. Moore v. State, 128 Ga.App. 20, 21, 195 S.E.2d 275 (1974). The court must determine if the facts upon which the officer acted would warrant a person of reasonable caution to be......