State v. Hardin, s. 69584

• Citation: 174 Ga.App. 83,329 S.E.2d 172
• Decision Date: 27 February 1985
• Docket Number: Nos. 69584,69585,s. 69584
• Parties: The STATE v. HARDIN (two cases).
• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)

Page 172

329 S.E.2d 172

174 Ga.App. 83

The STATE v. HARDIN (two cases).

Nos. 69584, 69585.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Feb. 27, 1985.

Rehearing Denied March 21, 1985.

Certiorari Denied April 24, 1985.

F. Larry Salmon, Dist. Atty., T. Russell McClelland III, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellant.

Virginia Barrow Harman, Paul T. Carroll III, Edward Hine, Jr., Rome, for appellee.

BIRDSONG, Presiding Judge.

The State appeals from the grant of two motions by Steve and Cecil Hardin respectively, to suppress evidence seized in a search of defendants' premises. On July 28, 1982, Cecil Hardin and his son, Steve, were arrested for possessing marijuana. An informant, previously known to Officer George Lemming of the Floyd County Police Department, told Lemming that he had personally observed a quantity of marijuana plants growing on the property of both Cecil and Steve Hardin. The informant had provided information to the officer on several prior occasions which had led to convictions in Floyd Superior Court concerning various drugs. Officer Lemming was given the addresses of both defendants by the informant and he drove to their homes. He testified: "I had no problems finding either residence. As a matter of fact, I pulled up in Cecil's driveway." Officer Lemming returned to his office and verified the addresses in the phone book. He obtained two search warrants. One warrant described the location: "Cecil Hardin ... on the premises located at 66 North Avery Road--White Wood Frame House--Rome, Floyd County, Georgia." The other warrant stated: "Steve Hardin ... on the premises located at 7 Highland Way/White Frame House, with basement--Rome, Floyd County, Georgia...." The trial court found that "[t]he descriptions of these search warrants simply are not sufficient." Held:

"The test for the sufficiency of a premises description is whether '... on its face it enables a prudent officer executing the warrant to locate the person and place definitely and with reasonable certainty.' " Anderson v. State, 249 Ga. 132, 135, 287 S.E.2d 195. The U.S. Supreme Court found a "[d]escription in a search warrant ... giving its street and one of its two house numbers ... sufficiently definite.... It is enough if the description is such that the officer with a search warrant can with reasonable effort ascertain and identify the place intended." Steele v. United States, 267 U.S. 498, 503, 45 S.Ct. 414, 416, 69 L.Ed. 757). Thus, in Adams v. State, 123 Ga.App. 206, 180 S.E.2d 262, this court found that a warrant description of " 'Tara Apartment Building 103, Apartment # 7, 134 Ashley Circle, Clarke County, Georgia ... in the custody or control of Tommy Norman' " to be sufficient, even though the street address may have been incorrect, where there was only one apartment building in that complex numbered 103, one...