Ross v. State
| Citation | 314 S.E.2d 674,169 Ga.App. 655 |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 67508,67508 |
| Parties | ROSS v. The STATE. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
James G. Blanchard, Jr., Augusta, for appellant.
Sam B. Sibley, Jr., Dist. Atty., Charles R. Sheppard, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Floyd Ross was indicted for possessing marijuana and certain amphetamine type drugs. He was convicted of the possession of marijuana only and acquitted of the second count involving amphetamines. He was sentenced to serve four years. Appellant's only complaint is the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress the fruits of an alleged illegal search and seizure of the drugs which form the basis of the charges. Held:
The facts concerning the search show by uncontroverted evidence that a reliable informant related to the officer making the affidavit in support of the search warrant that he (the informant) had been in Ross' home on several occasions, the latest occasion being within the twenty-four hours preceeding the preparation of the affidavit. The informant had witnessed the sale of marijuana by Ross to numerous drug purchasers in the past. Usually when a buyer appeared, Ross would go into the yard behind the house and come back with the marijuana for sale. The informant related that he was aware that Ross had received recently a new shipment of marijuana from Florida and was in the process of packaging the marijuana for small sales. The affiant himself had observed the premises of Ross for the two-week period prior to the requested warrant and had observed known drug users enter Ross' house, remain a short time, and then leave. Also the affiant had arrested Ross on an earlier occasion for possession of marijuana. The affiant could not be specific as to what dates he had observed persons entering and leaving Ross' house, but it was sometime within the two-week period of the issuance of the warrant. On the day of the issuance of the warrant itself, Ross was observed with known drug users to be in his backyard for a short period and then re-enter the house.
In rebuttal, Ross showed that he had been involved in an altercation a week before the search of his house. During that altercation, Ross had been shot in the arm and a major bone in his arm shattered. Thus for a week before the search, Ross had been in the hospital. Following his return home the day before the search was conducted, Ross remained in bed with his arm in traction. However, it was not disputed that Ross was ambulatory and in general was taking care of himself at home. Ross also denied by affidavit that any of the alleged observed acts occurred.
Based upon the foregoing, Ross contended that the search warrant contained a materially false statement (that he had been in his home for the two weeks prior to the issuance of the warrant and sold marijuana during that period) and should have been suppressed for that reason. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 2684, 57 L.Ed.2d 667; Cuevas v. State, 151 Ga.App. 605, 614, 260 S.E.2d 737.
We have difficulty with the literal application of this argument used by appellant. The facts established at the suppression hearing show that the agent steadfastly refused to specify that Ross had been seen or that drug users entered the house during the one week prior to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watts v. State, No. A03A0929.
...181 Ga.App. 806, 812(4), 353 S.E.2d 915 (1987); Amerson v. State, 177 Ga.App. 97, 100(5), 338 S.E.2d 528 (1985); Ross v. State, 169 Ga.App. 655, 657, 314 S.E.2d 674 (1984); Nutter v. State, 162 Ga.App. 349, 350, 291 S.E.2d 423 (1982) and any other case which requires the defendant specifica......
-
Watts v. State
...181 Ga.App. 806, 812(4), 353 S.E.2d 915 (1987); Amerson v. State, 177 Ga.App. 97, 100(5), 338 S.E.2d 528 (1985); Ross v. State, 169 Ga.App. 655, 657, 314 S.E.2d 674 (1984); Nutter v. State, 162 Ga.App. 349, 350, 291 S.E.2d 423 (1982) and any other case which requires the defendant specifica......
-
Williams v. State
...on its face. Further, there exists a presumption of validity regarding an affidavit supporting a search warrant. Ross v. State, 169 Ga.App. 655, 657, 314 S.E.2d 674. In the absence of a showing that the affiant engaged in misconduct in executing the affidavit or that material misrepresentat......
-
Ferrell v. State, A90A1615
...offer of proof of such evidence.... Mere allegations of negligence or mistake of fact are not sufficient. [Cit.]" Ross v. State, 169 Ga.App. 655, 657, 314 S.E.2d 674 (1984). In the instant case, there was neither an allegation nor proof of deliberate misrepresentation or reckless disregard ......