Wood v. State, 24463

• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Writing for the Court: MOBLEY
• Citation: 224 Ga. 121,160 S.E.2d 368
• Parties: James Ivan WOOD v. The STATE.
• Docket Number: No. 24463,24463
• Decision Date: 07 March 1968

Page 368

160 S.E.2d 368 224 Ga. 121 James Ivan WOOD
v.
The STATE. No. 24463. Supreme Court of Georgia. March 7, 1968.

Page 369

Syllabus by the Court

1. Section 9 of the 1966 Search and Seizure Act (Ga.L.1966, pp. 567, 570; Code Ann. § 27-309) does not offend the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

2. It was not error to deny the motion to suppress evidence obtained from a person in the commission of a crime, and incident to the arrest for that crime.

3. The admission of evidence of the commission of prior crimes, wholly distinct, independent, and separate from that for which [224 Ga. 122] the defendant was on trial, was error, since the evidence did not come within any exception to the rule that evidence of the general character of the defendant and his conduct in other transactions is irrelevant unless he has chosen to put his character in issue. Code § 38-202.

Charles R. Smith, Atlanta, for appellant.

Lewis R. Slaton, Sol. Gen., William E. Spence, Hinson McAuliffe, Frank A. Bowers, Atlanta, for appellee.

MOBLEY, Justice.

The defendant was tried in the Criminal Court of Fulton County for violating Code § 26-6502, in that he 'did keep, maintain, and operate a lottery, known as the number game, for the hazarding of money,' and was convicted and sentenced. A petition for certiorari to the Superior Court of Fulton County was filed, and writ of certiorari issued. On consideration of the record, the judge of the superior court denied the petition for certiorari, and refused to grant a new trial. From this judgment the defendant appealed, enumerating as error: (1) the denial of his petition for certiorari on the ground that the ruling was contrary to law; (2) the denial of his motion to suppress certain evidence; and (3) the holding that Section 9 of Ga.L.1966, pp. 567, 570 (Code Ann. § 27-309) is constitutional.

Page 370

1. The motion to suppress sought to suppress as evidence purported lottery paraphernalia seized from Margaret Wood on a stated date and at a stated time, when the automobile which the defendant was driving, and in which Margaret Wood was a passenger, was stopped and the material was seized from the person of Margaret Wood under a search warrant.

(A) It has been argued by counsel for the State that the defendant is not a person aggrieved by the search and seizure of the lottery paraphernalia from Margaret Wood, because on the trial he disclaimed any right of possession of the papers seized. In Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 261, 80 S.Ct. 725, 731, 4 L.Ed.2d 697, it was held: 'In order to qualify as a 'person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure' one must have been a victim of a search or seizure, one against [224 Ga. 123] whom the search was directed, as distinguished from one who claims prejudice only through the use of evidence gathered as a consequence of a search or seizure directed at someone else.' The evidence which the defendant seeks to suppress was obtained during the execution of a search warrant authorizing the search of his person and automobile, and he would be a person aggrieved by the search, if it should be held to be unlawful.

(B) It was asserted in the motion to suppress that the search and seizure under the warrant were illegal because Section 9 of Ga.L.1966, pp. 567, 570 (Code Ann. § 27-309) is void and in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States (Code §§ 1-804, 1-815), in that such section authorizes a search of the persons of citizens of the United States and of the State of Georgia without probable cause and without particularly describing the person to be searched or the articles to be seized.

Code Ann. § 27-309 provides: '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 Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States guarantees: 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon...