Wallace v. State
| Decision Date | 07 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 48999,48999,2 |
| Citation | 205 S.E.2d 523,131 Ga.App. 204 |
| Parties | Ted WALLACE v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Smith & Portman, Alexander L. Zipperer, III, Savannah, for appellant.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Wallace appeals with a certificate from the overruling of his motions to suppress evidence and to quash an accusation arising out of his arrest for marijuana possession. The state makes no response to the appeal.
The brief of evidence of the hearing and other documents submitted to the trial court show that on February 28, 1973, certain police officers were conducting a search of the residence of one Eccles under a warrant which additionally provided for the search of 'any person who might reasonably be involved in the crime of possession of illegal drugs or narcotics'; while the search was in progress Wallace knocked at the door; it was opened by the police who searched Wallace as soon as he entered; they found and removed from him a metal case which, upon being opened, revealed a tin foil packet which, upon being opened, revealed a brown powder subsequently identified as marijuana. An accusation was filed on September 19, 1973 charging Wallace with the misdemeanor of intentional possession of .29 grams of marijuana.
We consider first his motion to suppress evidence made upon grounds that the search of his person was not authorized by the warrant and was made without probable cause, and that the warrant was void and issued without probable cause.
1. Code Ann. § 27-309 provides that 'In the execution of the warrant the person executing the same may reasonably detain or search any person in the place at the time: (a) To protect himself from attack, or (b) To prevent the disposal or concealment of any instruments, articles or things particularly described in the warrant.' The statute by necessary implication describes the limited circumstances in which the executing officer may search persons not identified in the warrant incident to a legitimate search of premises. In other words, it is operative when the warrant does not contain language such as we have here purporting to authorize search of 'any person present. . . .' The question, then, is whether by inserting the words 'and any person present' in the warrant, the searching authorities may broaden their power to search persons not identified in the warrant beyond the limited terms of Code Ann. § 27-309. We hold that they may not, on the ground that Code Ann. § 27-309 describes the maximum extent to which the particularity of description required by the Fourth Amendment may be encroached upon by the practical necessities of the search environment. See Wood v. State, 224 Ga. 121, 124, 160 S.E.2d 368; Wills v. State, 122 Ga.App. 455, 177 S.E.2d 487. Naturally, the statute does not limit the officer's right to search persons as to whom probable cause for a warrantless search exists.
Under the facts present here, involving Wallace's arrival at the apartment while the search was in progress and his being under constant surveillance from the moment of his entry, Code Ann. § 27-309(b) is factually inapplicable, and the search for weapons authorized by Code Ann. § 27-309(a) is a less intrusive search than that to which Wallace was subjected. For this reason, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...v. United States, 229 A.2d 449 (D.C.App.1967); People v. Leal, 64 Cal.2d 504, 512, 50 Cal.Rptr. 777, 413 P.2d 665; Wallace v. State, 131 Ga.App. 204(2), 205 S.E.2d 523. In Wallace, supra, this court found that it was not necessary on that record to decide whether there is some minimum amoun......
-
Wyatt v. State, 58028
...by Code Ann. § 27-309 so as to validate the search which here resulted in the discovery of contraband drugs. In Wallace v. State, 131 Ga.App. 204, 205, 205 S.E.2d 523, 525 (1974), this court held that such language does not "broaden (the) power to search persons not identified in the warran......
-
State v. Mallard
...does not limit the officer's right to search persons as to whom probable cause for a warrantless search exists. See Travis v. State;21 Wallace v. State.22 We now address whether or not the police had probable cause to stop the defendants, pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, supra. The only reason th......
-
Smith v. State
...State, 163 Ga.App. 819(1), 296 S.E.2d 119 (1982). Compare State v. Cochran, 135 Ga.App. 47, 217 S.E.2d 181 (1975); Wallace v. State, 131 Ga.App. 204, 205 S.E.2d 523 (1974). Judgments DEEN and McMURRAY, P.JJ., and BIRDSONG, POPE and BENHAM, JJ., concur. BANKE, P.J., and SOGNIER and BEASLEY, ......