Register v. State
| Decision Date | 15 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 46236,No. 2,46236,2 |
| Citation | 124 Ga.App. 136,183 S.E.2d 68 |
| Parties | Lawrence A. REGISTER et al. v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Wesley R. Asinof, Jack Paller, Atlanta, for appellants.
Edward E. McGarity, Dist. Atty., McDonough, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendants were jointly indicted in Henry Superior Court for the offense of possessing marijuana. Upon arraignment, motions to suppress the evidence were filed, and after a hearing, same were overruled. The trial judge certified same for immediate review. The appeal is from the denial of the motions to suppress.
The evidence shows that certain police officers had received information that a quantity of marijuana would be shipped into the Fulton County Airport on a named date, transported in this vicinity by 3 or 4 persons in a van-type rental truck accompanied by a 1970 yellow and black Oldsmobile automobile-'442'; and that 'Larry would be driving it.' This information came from a reliable informant, who was another police officer and whose name was not disclosed in order that he might remain unknown, and with whom the officer who testified had previously dealt in such fashion as to suggest the reliability of said informant. After surveillance, a truck and auto similar to the ones above described were followed from the Fulton County Airport for a distance of 8 miles, and stopped in Henry County, where a search was made of the rental van-type truck. The search disclosed a leafy vegetation which, upon subsequent examination by the State Crime Laboratory, was described as marijuana. Held:
The sole question for determination here is whether a vehicle can be lawfully searched and its contents seized pursuant to the 4th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, where the warrant and search are predicated upon information from a reliable informer who does not testify, and where the basis for the informant's knowledge is not revealed by him, and is unknown by the officers conducting the search.
Where a search is conducted without a valid warrant it violates the provisions of the 4th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and the search and seizure is illegal. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081; Ker v. California, 368 U.S. 974, 82 S.Ct. 480, 7 L.Ed.2d 437. But, although a search of a dwelling is not authorized without a proper search warrant, when the officers have ample time to procure one (Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 46 S.Ct. 4, 70 L.Ed. 145; Jones v. United States, 357 U.S. 493, 78 S.Ct. 1253, 2 L.Ed.2d 1514) a search of a movable vehicle is an exception, provided there is sufficient probable cause for such search. See Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543. But where the hearsay tip of a reliable informer is relied upon, 'the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the narcotics were where he claimed they were, and some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant, whose identity need not be disclosed, * * * was 'credible' or his information 'reliable. " Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723; Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 78 S.Ct. 1245, 2 L.Ed.2d 1503. But the State officers here made the search and seizure upon a lawful arrest based upon the facts received from the informer to the effect that the defendants would be transporting marijuana in bulk. This case differs from Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637; United States v. Roth, 7 Cir., 391 F.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morrow v. State
...by observation of the premises and listening to the informant place bets with the suspects on the telephone. Register v. State, 124 Ga.App. 136, 139, 183 S.E.2d 68. Probable cause for issuance of the investigative warrant was clearly established. Accordingly, there is not the slightest tain......
-
Dugan v. State
...detailing the criminal activity, or by independent corroboration. See Davis v. State, 127 Ga.App. 76, 192 S.E.2d 538; Register v. State, 124 Ga.App. 136, 183 S.E.2d 68; Thrall v. State, 122 Ga.App. 427, 177 S.E.2d 192; Johnson v. State, 121 Ga.App. 477(1), 174 S.E.2d 246. Obviously, the inf......
-
Love v. State
...the search and seizure. This holding unsupported by any citation of authority overlooks the decisions of the court in Register v. State, 124 Ga.App. 136, 138, 183 S.E.2d 68; Meneghan v. State, 132 Ga.App. 380, 383(2c), 208 S.E.2d 150; and Baxter v. State, 134 Ga.App. 286, 288(1), 214 S.E.2d......
-
Meneghan v. State
...to which a lawful search could be conducted. Cf. Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327; Register v. State, 124 Ga.App. 136, 183 S.E.2d 68; Andreu v. State, 124 Ga.App. 793, 186 S.E.2d 137; Miller v. State, 127 Ga.App. 248, 192 S.E.2d 915; United States v. Ardle,......