Williams v. State, 46536
| Decision Date | 12 November 1971 |
| Docket Number | 3,Nos. 1,No. 46536,2,46536,s. 1 |
| Citation | 186 S.E.2d 756,125 Ga.App. 170 |
| Parties | Gordon WILLIAMS v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Joe Salem, Atlanta, for appellant.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., John A. Nuckolls, Joel M. Feldman, Carter Goode, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The defendant was convicted on a two-count indictment. Count 1 charged him with possession of cocaine. Count 2 charged him with possession of marijuana. The cocaine was recovered at the time or soon after the defendant was arrested. A portion of the marijuana was discovered by a search of the defendant's motel room. The search of the automobile was made without a warrant after the defendant's arrest. The search of the defendant's motel room was made after a search warrant had been obtained. After having been found guilty on both counts the defendant appealed to this court. Held:
1. The defendant filed a motion to suppress and later filed an amendment to the motion prior to the calling of the case and the hearing on the motion. The trial court did not err in overruling the motion to suppress because the defendant was not given an inventory of the articles seized. Code Ann. § 27-302 (Ga.L.1966, pp. 567, 568) relates only to a search without a warrant. In this case a search warrant was obtained for searching the defendant's motel room. While no search warrant was obtained for the search of the automobile, the circumstances under which it originated, i.e., the high speed chase through red lights during which the officer observed a white powdery substance coming out of the driver's window, and when stopped the defendant appeared intoxicated and threw or dropped a small container to the ground (later found to contain cocaine), authorized a warrantless search of the automobile at that point as well as later. See Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419. The failure to make an inventory, being merely a ministerial act, did not affect the validity of the search and the arrest. 'The failure to comply with the requirement . . . as to the filing of a sworn written inventory of property taken in executing a search warrant, does not render the warrant inadmissible in a prosecution for unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor, since the making and delivery of the inventory was a ministerial act, the omission of which did not affect the validity of the search.' Reisgo v. United States, 5 Cir., 285 F. 740. See also Rose v. United States, 6 Cir., 274 F. 245; State v. Tillery, 107 Ariz. 34, 481 P.2d 271.
2. Code Ann. § 27-312 provides that 'No warrant shall be quashed nor evidence suppressed because of technical irregularity not affecting the substantial rights of the accused.' This statute was cited and applied in the recent case of Waters v. State, 122 Ga.App. 808(2), 178 S.E.2d 770.
3. That the making and filing of such an inventory is merely a ministerial act not affecting the substantive rights of an accused is further borne out by the fact that such failure is not a ground for a motion to suppress under the provisions of Code Ann. § 27-313.
We have examined the other grounds set forth in the motion to suppress, and under all the facts of this case, find them to be without merit.
4. The remaining enumerations of error have been abandoned or found to be without merit.
Judgment affirmed.
WHITMAN, J., not participating because of illness.
One of the grounds of the motion to suppress was that the defendant was not given an inventory of the articles seized by the search which was made without a warrant. Code Ann. § 27-302 (Ga.L.1966, pp. 567, 568) provides: In Murby v. United States, 1 Cir., 293 F. 849, 852, it was held: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rivers v. State
...act, suppression will not be ordered, at least in the absence of a showing of prejudice to the defendant. Williams v. State, 125 Ga.App. 170(1), 186 S.E.2d 756 (1971); Lewis v. State, 126 Ga.App. 123(2)(a), 190 S.E.2d 123 In an effort to show prejudice defendant's counsel contends that the ......
-
State v. Montoya
...Deficiencies, if any exist in the return in the present instance, can always be corrected by order of court. See, Williams v. State, 125 Ga.App. 170, 186 S.E.2d 756 (1971). Giles v. United States, 284 F. 208 (1st Cir. 1922) and Murby v. United States, 293 F. 849 (1st Cir. 1923), considering......
-
Merrill v. State, 48419
...obtained by the search and seizure void it. This is a ministerial act, not affecting the validity of the search. Williams v. State, 125 Ga.App. 170(1), 186 S.E.2d 756.' Guest v. State, 230 Ga. 569, 572, 198 S.E.2d 158, The trial judge did not err in denying the motion to suppress. 5. Expert......
-
United States v. Baty
...operate to exclude the recovered evidence from the trial. Lewis v. State, 126 Ga.App. 123, 190 S.E.2d 123 (1972); Williams v. State, 125 Ga. App. 170, 186 S.E.2d 756 (1971). Such an after-the-search procedural deficit is certainly not a violation of any Fourth Amendment Baty next raises the......