Tomblin v. State
Decision Date | 18 April 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 2,No. 48073,48073,2 |
Citation | 198 S.E.2d 366,128 Ga.App. 823 |
Parties | Becky A. TOMBLIN et al. v. The STATE |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Nixon & Nixon, Jon A. Nixon, Nunn, Geiger, Rampey, Buice & Harrington, D. L. Rampey, Jr., Warner Robins, for appellants.
Walker P. Johnson, Jr., Dist. Atty., W. Donald Thompson, Thomas H. Hinson, Macon, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Defendants jointly appeal from the denial of their motions to suppress certain evidence alleged to have been seized under an invalid warrant. The defendants were indicted in three counts for illegal possession of hashish, LSD and librium.
The search warrant was issued and executed on October 27, 1971. The detective's affidavit contains all the pertinent information duplicated elsewhere in the warrant; and as its sufficiency is the chief issue on this appeal we shall quote the whole of it.
1. The defendants contend the reliability of the informer is insufficiently shown-that there are no facts showing how, for what purpose, or with what result, this informer was used in the past which would prove his reliability. We believe that while this portion of the affidavit could have been set out much better, it is capable of logical interpretation which would satisfy the requirements. For example, it makes common sense that the 'reliable informer' was 'used numerous times in the past' as an informer; not, as defendants contend, in some other purely personal capacity. It is also clearly inferable that information he had furnished in the past had been valuable, or he would not have been used numerous times. Reliability may be shown by a past history in similar matters. Marshall v. State, 113 Ga.App. 143, 147 S.E.2d 666; Steele v. State, 118 Ga.App. 433, 164 S.E.2d 255. Therefore, while a recital that his information had led to certain arrests, convictions, etc. would be desirable, we do not believe it is essential to show reliability. For what appears to be a liberalizing of the requirements for showing reliability, see United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 577, 91 S.Ct. 2075, 29 L.Ed.2d 723.
2. Defendants contend the affidavit is insufficient because it does not describe the criminal activity in sufficient detail so as to exclude mere rumor or suspicion. This is not a necessary requirement when the affidavit specifically states how the informer obtained the information. Detailed description is only necessary when the informer's means of knowledge is not stated. See Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637; Sams v. State, 121 Ga.App. 46, 172 S.E.2d 473. Here, it is stated that the informer was personally in the apartment and saw the drugs being sold and used. That is as succinct a statement of how an informer obtained information as we have seen.
3. Defendants contend the information was stale at the time the warrant issued (36 hours after the informer was in the apartment) and was therefore insufficient to provide probable cause. The cases cited by the defendants concern either a warrant in which no specific time was stated,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Galgano v. State, 55628
...had furnished information which resulted in the arrest of one person and the recovery of various illegal drugs"); Tomblin v. State, 128 Ga.App. 823(1), 198 S.E.2d 366 (1973) (informant used "numerous times" in past and personally known to affiant for several years). Otherwise, the police wo......
-
Bryan v. State, s. 51292
...satisfies the required showing as to the informer's reliability. Sams v. State, 121 Ga.App. 46, 172 S.E.2d 473; Tomblin v. State, 128 Ga.App. 823, 198 S.E.2d 366; Currington v. State, 129 Ga.App. 161, 199 S.E.2d 268. While the affidavit fails to set forth any of the underlying circumstances......
-
State v. Boswell
...206, 53 S.Ct. 138, 77 L.Ed. 260, 85 A.L.R. 108, that 'probable cause relates to current and not stale information.' Tomblin v. State, 128 Ga.App. 823, 198 S.E.2d 366, held in the instance of narcotics that 36 hours would not negate timeliness. The special concurring opinion in McMahan v. St......
-
State v. Bradley
...894. While the affidavit in this case may have been sufficient as to the unidentified informant's reliability (Tomblin v. State, 128 Ga.App. 823, 824(1), 198 S.E.2d 366), it was fatally defective in the two remaining respects. The affidavit at best gives a mere description of a suspect with......