Pressel v. State
| Decision Date | 22 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 63835,63835 |
| Citation | 163 Ga.App. 188,292 S.E.2d 553 |
| Parties | PRESSEL, et al. v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Al Horn, Barry Hazen, Atlanta, for appellants.
Joseph H. Briley, Dist. Atty., Al Martinez, Asst. Dist. Atty., Madison, for appellee.
Appellants, Robert Pressel and Jenny Tallant, appeal their conviction for possession of more than one ounce of marijuana. Held :
1. The first four enumerated errors address the legal sufficiency of the search warrant. (a). Deputy Sheriff Dudley of Morgan County personally appeared before Justice of the Peace Beckham and testified to the facts upon which the warrant was based. The J. P. entered a synopsis of that testimony on the affidavit attached to the warrant and had it sworn to by Dudley. Sheriff Burge was also present at the time of the taking of Dudley's testimony. All three were called and questioned in the hearing on the motion to suppress. There were discrepancies between what Dudley testified that he told the J. P. and what appeared on the affidavit. However, on the issue of probable cause to search the residence rented by the defendants, there was no doubt that Dudley informed the J. P. that he had a confidential informant who had provided him information in the past which had proven to be reliable, and the informant had seen marijuana and a white powdery substance that he believed to be cocaine in the house within the past 24 to 72 hours. Dudley stated that he had the house under surveillance for the past several days and had contacted his informant on the afternoon before the warrant issued that night and was on the lookout for a U-Haul truck which was to be loaded with marijuana. While he had the house under surveillance, he overheard a radio call that a truck and a "Blazer" had been stopped in Morgan County with loads of furniture. Because Dudley was also investigating several burglaries he went to that location and found Robert Pressel and Jenny Tallant had been stopped because Pressel failed to stop at a stop sign. Pressel said he did not have his driver's license with him but it was in the "Blazer" following him--being driven by Jenny Tallant. The officers stopped Tallant and not only did she not have Pressel's drivers license, she did not have a license. Officer Dudley recognized Jenny Tallant's name as one of those given him by his confidential informant--the other name given him was Steve Tallant. Pressel testified that he had used the name Steve Tallant on the lease when he and Jenny Tallant leased the house in Morgan County. Following Pressel's arrest he was searched and the officer found a Such a device can be used to "snort" cocaine. Pressel had reported a U-Haul truck stolen, and the officers discovered Tallant had been arrested in Gainesville and Pressel was searched when he arrived and had $16,000 taken from him--but it was later returned. Tallant had $3,700 in her purse when she was arrested. Dudley decided to get a search warrant as soon as possible because he was afraid Pressel and Tallant would make bond and destroy the drugs the informer had advised him were present in their house. "I felt like they suspected something was coming down and if I didn't get what I had right then, I was going to lose everything." Dudley and the sheriff met at the defendant's house and Dudley advised the sheriff what his informant had told him and it was decided to procure a search warrant. They went by the J. P.'s house, picked him up, and took him to his office in downtown Madison.
Although there were discrepancies between the testimony of Dudley as to what he had testified to before the J. P. and what appeared on the affidavit, Dudley, Sheriff Burge, and the J. P. who issued the warrant all testified as to the circumstances and were subject to a searching cross-examination. The trial court resolved the issue in favor of denying the motion to suppress. Woodruff v. State, 233 Ga. 840, 844, 213 S.E.2d 689; State v. Harris, 246 Ga. 759(1), 272 S.E.2d 719. Those findings denying the motion to suppress are supported by evidence and are not clearly erroneous.
(b) The source of the informant's information was established to be his presence in the defendant's house, and in the presence of both defendants. His reliability was adequately established by Dudley's testimony that the informant had given him information on a number of prior occassions, all of which were proven to be correct, and arrests had been made based on that information. Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327.
(c) Defendant contends the search warrant was not issued by a neutral and detached magistrate. He bases this assertion upon the fact of the presence of the magistrate at the scene of the search during the execution of the warrant. This court, in Thomason v. State, 148 Ga.App. 513, 251 S.E.2d 598, found that the conduct of an issuing magistrate of a warrant in permitting his automobile to be used to transport the search party to the site of the search, and observing the procedure during the search while conversing with the officers and the defendant, and thereafter issued arrest warrants for the defendants, was impermissible conduct because the requirement " 'that a warrant be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate requires severance and disengagement from activities of law enforcement activities.' " We also found "this was not an isolated instance but part of an ongoing practice ... [which] conveys the impression that Judge McKeehan had 'thrown in' with officers of the law..." 148 Ga.App. at 514, 251 S.E.2d 598.
In the instant case there is evidence of this one isolated incident in which the magistrate was picked up at his home by police officers at approximately 2 a. m. in the morning, and transported in their car to his office where he heard the evidence and issued the warrant. Due to the urgent nature of the impending search, because Deputy Sheriff Dudley believed the defendants knew they were suspected and "if I didn't get what I had right then, I was going to lose everything," the officers apparently decided rather than delay the search by transporting the J. P. back to his home at that time, they took him with them to the scene of the search. The sheriff testified: Deputy Dudley testified: "Billy Beckham [the issuing magistrate] was there, but he wasn't searching." The only reasonable inference from the evidence is there was a valid reason for the J. P.'s presence--awaiting transportation home. There is no evidence that this is anything but an isolated incident. There was an affirmative showing he did not participate in the search, and when he testified as a witness, counsel for the defendant did not attempt to pursue the matter or establish the extent of his participation, and now infers, speculates, surmises and theorizes what his conduct may have been. We have found no evidence that the J. P. was anything other than a neutral and detached magistrate in the issuance of this warrant, caught up in the exigencies of a rapidly developing search situation to prevent disposition or destruction of evidence said to be present by an informer. These enumerations of error are without merit.
2. Defendant alleges the trial court erred "in failing to order that the informant be interviewed in camera, in that the circumstances surrounding the alleged informant are so incredible as to raise considerable doubt as to his existence."
Throughout the trial counsel for the defendant expended considerable time in cross-examination of Deputy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lockett v. State
...who goes to the scene, issues a warrant and remains there for some time does not abdicate his proper position. Pressel v. State, 163 Ga.App. 188, 292 S.E.2d 553, 556 (1982); see also Rains, 288 S.E.2d at 628; LaFave Search and Seizure Sec. 4.2(d) (2d ed....
-
Castillo v. State, s. 65437
...of the informant. The evidence in this case shows the informer was a mere tipster. Disclosure is not required." Pressel v. State, 163 Ga.App. 188(3), 292 S.E.2d 553 (1982); see also Dyer v. State, 162 Ga.App. 773(2), 293 S.E.2d 42 (1982); Henderson v. State, supra at 4. Defendants Castillo ......
-
State v. Jackson
...valuable information to law enforcement authorities. See Anderson v. State, 249 Ga. 132(5), 287 S.E.2d 195 (1982); Pressel v. State, 163 Ga.App. 188(1b), 292 S.E.2d 553 (1982); McCannon v. State, 161 Ga.App. 685(4), 288 S.E.2d 663 (1982). The term "reliable informer," used in the affidavit ......
-
State v. Farmer
...this case certainly was sufficient to support issuance of a search warrant under the Aguilar-Spinelli test. See Pressel v. State, 163 Ga.App. 188, 190, 292 S.E.2d 553 (1982). The dissenting opinion is unduly concerned about "what led the informant to his conclusion that he saw cocaine"; a f......