Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 30 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. S94G1791,S94G1791 |
| Citation | 457 S.E.2d 665,265 Ga. 471 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Danny W. Crabbe, W. Wyatt Clarke, Crabbe & Clarke, Rome, for Williams.
Stephen F. Lanier, Dist. Atty., Lisa W. Pettit, Asst. Dist. Atty., Rome, for the State.
John C. Pridgen, Dist. Atty., Cordele, amici curiae.
Williams's conviction for drug offenses depended in part on evidence developed from information gathered with a pen register. She based her motion to suppress that evidence on the provision in OCGA § 16-11-67 making inadmissible any evidence obtained in violation of the statutes controlling electronic surveillance. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that although the issuing judge did not keep custody of the application for the warrant, and the officer executing the warrant did not return it within 30 days, requirements set forth in OCGA § 16-11-64(b)(5), (6), the trial court correctly denied the motion to suppress because Williams showed no prejudice arising from the noncompliance with the statute and because the administrative procedures for safeguarding documents were unconnected with obtaining the evidence. Williams v. State, 214 Ga.App. 280(1), 447 S.E.2d 676 (1994). We granted Williams's petition for certiorari to consider whether failure to comply strictly with the statutorily imposed administrative requirements demanded exclusion of the evidence. Although we disagree with the narrow scope the Court of Appeals gave to the word "obtained," we agree with the Court of Appeals that the absence of prejudice in this case authorized the denial of the motion to suppress.
1. The Court of Appeals held that since the statutory exclusion applies only to evidence "obtained" in violation of the electronic surveillance statutes, and since "the statutory provisions in issue in the instant case set forth procedures for safeguarding certain documents, and are unconnected with the actual obtaining of the evidence," id. at 281, 447 S.E.2d 676, the exclusionary provision of the statute is inapplicable to this case. If that were so, however, noncompliance with administrative requirements could never require suppression of evidence, despite prejudice to the defendant. The view expressed in the dissent to the Court of Appeals' opinion is better-reasoned: to protect against tampering, alteration, or destruction of evidence, and against allegations of such conduct, "obtained" necessarily includes both the gathering and the safeguarding of the evidence. Id. at 283, 447 S.E.2d 676. We agree with that view and note further that the administrative requirements involved in this case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pickens v. State
... ... State, 209 Ga.App. 276, 433 S.E.2d 386 (1993). The court's findings of fact " 'will not be disturbed if there is any evidence to support them.' " (Citation omitted.) State v. Williams, 220 Ga.App. 100, 102(2), 469 S.E.2d 261 (1996) ... Kitty Smith, assistant manager of a motel in an area where such establishments were "notorious" for drug and prostitution activities, received an anonymous phone call from a male informing her that Pickens was selling marijuana ... ...
-
State v. Anderson
...allegations of such conduct, 'obtained' necessarily includes both the gathering and the safeguarding of the evidence." Williams v. State, 265 Ga. 471, 457 S.E.2d 665. We find no reason to treat "obtained" in State v. Strickman/OCGA § 5-7-1(4) differently from "obtained" in the OCGA § 16-11-......
-
Allison v. State, A03A0175.
... ... 12. Daniel v. State, 251 Ga.App. 792, 793, 555 S.E.2d 154 (2001) ... 13. (Footnote omitted.) Smith v. State, 253 Ga. App. 131, 133(1), 558 S.E.2d 455 (2001) ... 14. Williams" v. State, 214 Ga.App. 280, 282(5), 447 S.E.2d 676 (1994), aff'd on other grounds, 265 Ga. 471, 457 S.E.2d 665 (1995) ... 15. See generally Harwell v. State, 270 Ga. 765, 766(1), 512 S.E.2d 892 (1999); Moore v. State, 207 Ga.App. 892, 894(2), 429 S.E.2d 335 (1993) ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Anderson v. State
...the electronic surveillance warrant and renders the evidence illegal and inadmissable in a criminal prosecution. See Williams v. State, 265 Ga. 471(1), 457 S.E.2d 665 (1995), which states that "obtained" in the context of OCGA § 16-11-67 includes not only the gathering of evidence but also ......