lawskills
Loading
Did you know you can download our entire database for free?


Resources
[more] 

Georgia Caselaw:
Browse
Greatest Hits

Georgia Code: Browse

(external) Findlaw Georgia Law Resources


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Lawskills.com Georgia Caselaw
THE STATE v. BLEWS.
56263.
BIRDSONG, Judge.
Motion to suppress. Muscogee State Court. Before Judge Followill.
The state appeals the grant of appellee's motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to an allegedly defective search warrant. Held:
1. The warrant in question described the premises to be searched as "a building located at No. 13 West 11th Street, Columbus, Georgia." The warrant further described the premises to be searched as "the Pix Mini Adult Theatre, at No. 13 West 11th Street, Columbus, Muscogee County, Georgia." The trial court found that although the premises searched were in fact those of the Pix Mini Adult Theatre, the correct street address of the premises was No. 15 West 11th Street, Columbus, Georgia. The trial court held that the warrant was insufficiently specific in its description of the premises to be searched and was therefore void.
2. A search warrant is constitutionally inadequate if the description of the premises to be searched "is so indefinite that under the authority of the warrant an officer can exercise a selective discretion in determining where he will search . . ." 68 AmJur2d 728, Searches and Seizures, 74; Durrett v. State, 136 Ga. App. 114 (220 SE2d 92). Thus, this court has stated: "[T]o be valid a search warrant must contain a description of the person and premises to be searched with such particularity as to enable a prudent officer executing the warrant to locate the person and place definitely and with reasonable certainty, without depending upon his discretion." Jones v. State, 126 Ga. App. 841, 842 (192 SE2d 171). 'Accordingly, it has been said that a search warrant should be read as a whole, and any designation or description known to the locality that points out the place to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry leads the officers unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement.' " Durrett v. State, supra, p. 115. Finally, the legislature has declared that "no warrant shall be quashed nor evidence suppressed because of technical irregularity not affecting the substantial rights of the accused." Code Ann. 27-312.
Swearingen, Childs & Philips, John C. Swearingen, Ben B. Philips, for appellee.
Robert G. Johnston, Solicitor, Kenneth M. Henson, Jr., Assistant Solicitor, for appellant.
SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 18, 1978 -- DECIDED OCTOBER 12, 1978 -- REHEARING DENIED NOVEMBER 14, 1978.
Friday May 22 05:06 EDT


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Valid HTML 4.0!

Valid CSS!





Home - Tour - Disclaimer - Privacy - Contact Us
Copyright © 2000,2002,2004 Lawskills.com