-
254 S.E.2d 337 Supreme Court of Georgia March 15, 1979 No. 34225
The Search Mooney first argues that the seizure of his luggage and numerous police searches of the shopping bag were done without a warrant and without his consent, and were not valid inventory searches.
Indeed, the officers’ immediate seizure of the car may have been warranted on grounds beyond convenience.
The search was conducted without investigative motive, pursuant to a standard police inventory procedure. Though officers plainly had time to secure a warrant, none was held required.
-
486 S.E.2d 861 Supreme Court of Georgia July 16, 1997 No. S97P0285
Because valid consent to search the interior of Thomason’s car existed, the need for either probable cause or a search warrant was eliminated. 13 (c) In addition to observing the bloody currency on the Cutlass’ console and the blood
Nor is there any merit to Thomason’s contention that evidence seized as part of a search of the Cutlass after it was taken into custody should have been suppressed because no warrant was obtained before such search.
When police officers have probable cause to suspect that there is evidence of a crime inside an automobile that has been stopped on the road, they may conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle, even after it has been impounded and
-
576 S.E.2d 888 Supreme Court of Georgia February 10, 2003 Nos. S02A1277, S02A1346, S02A1349
Despite not having a search warrant for the car, the police placed it on a flat-bed wrecker and took it to the GBI Crime Lab in DeKalb County.
After obtaining the invalid search warrant, the police searched the car. There is no evidence that this search was valid as an inventory search or as incident to the arrest. See New York v. Belton, 453 U.
If the police have probable cause, they may search a vehicle without a warrant because “ ‘the opportunity to search is fleeting since a car is readily movable.’ [Cit.]” California v. Carney, supra at 391 (II).
-
311 S.E.2d 823 Supreme Court of Georgia February 6, 1984 No. 40184
Prior to trial, they moved to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant on the ground that the warrant was issued without probable cause. The motion was denied.
One's prolonged and frequent association with an alleged drug dealer, without more, is insufficient to provide probable cause for issuance of a search warrant. See Thornton v. State, 125 Ga. App. 374 ( 187 SE2d 583 ) (1972).
The Supreme Court relied heavily on this "independent police work," as well as the great detail contained in the original tip, in upholding the search warrant issued there. Id.
-
279 S.E.2d 678 Supreme Court of Georgia July 1, 1981 No. 37318
A search warrant was issued to search the defendant’s living quarters at the DeSoto Truck Stop.
Information provided by police officers, arising out of an official investigation, may be used to *755 establish probable cause for a search warrant. Pollard v. State, 236 Ga. 587 ( 224 SE2d 420 ) (1976).
Noting that had the defendant in Edwards initiated the second interview with police after he had originally declined to talk to them without an attorney, “nothing in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments would prohibit the police from
-
207 S.E.2d 459 Supreme Court of Georgia June 25, 1974 No. 28922
A search of the car was then conducted and a bag of marijuana was found in the glove compartment. Swift was arrested and charged with marijuana possession.
S. 443, 465 (91 SC 2022, 29 LE2d 564), the Supreme Court of the United States held, "It is well established that under certain circumstances the police may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant.”
Since the marijuana was in plain view, the officer had probable cause to search the vehicle without a warrant. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 42, 48 (90 SC 1975, 26 LE2d 419).
-
443 S.E.2d 474 Supreme Court of Georgia May 31, 1994 No. S93G1407
into a pickup truck, and drive away without stopping.
Although an officer may conduct a brief investigative stop of a vehicle (see Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.
App. 495 ( 411 SE2d 314 ) (1991) (radio dispatch that attendant in service station across from officers' car reported intoxicated customer authorized stop of car matching attendant's description); McConnell v. State, 156 Ga.
-
211 S.E.2d 294 Supreme Court of Georgia December 3, 1974 No. 29313
Officer Hill and another police officer then began a search of the car.
J. 1161 (1966), which stated that one may legitimately be in a particular place on no business whatsoever, perhaps merely to be alone or to watch the moon, and he has the right to do so without harassment.
It is clear that under Jones, a party may assert standing to challenge the search of a vehicle either by showing a possessory interest in the car search or by property taken or by claiming automatic standing if charged with an offense
-
312 S.E.2d 40 Supreme Court of Georgia December 5, 1983 No. 39641
The warrant was issued on June 3, and a search of appellant’s residence and car was conducted that day.
The warrant was issued, and a search was conducted June 22. At trial evidence gathered from appellant’s house and car, especially fiber evidence, was used extensively to support the state’s case. i) .
We note at the outset that “[w]hen an application for a search warrant has been made by the police to a neutral and detached magistrate, and the magistrate has issued the warrant based on a finding of probable cause, a reviewing court
-
279 S.E.2d 650 Supreme Court of Georgia June 30, 1981 No. 37255
Pursuant to a warrant he searched the Duster that afternoon and again on May 14th. In the latter search a partial box of .22 caliber short ammunition was recovered. While in North Carolina, Sgt.
He further argued that the probable cause supporting the warrant pursuant to which the house was searched on May 14 was tainted by the allegedly illegal search which had occurred on May 11. The trial court overruled the motion.
Similarly, when the police come upon the scene of a homicide they may make a prompt warrantless search of the area to see if there are other victims or if a killer is still on the premises...
-
779 S.E.2d 248 Supreme Court of Georgia November 2, 2015 No. S14G1765
the detention of Scott and Allen and to search the car.
to the police car; Scott did not appear impaired.
been stopped [as part of a traffic stop] for identification without conducting a Fourth Amendment search or seizure.
-
214 S.E.2d 873 Supreme Court of Georgia April 8, 1975 No. 29558
The detective told both defendant and his father that the police would leave and obtain a search warrant if they desired, but both defendant and his father advised the detective that a warrant would not be necessary and that the police
the house but could not do so without a *94 warrant or their consent.
We believe that these facts show probable cause upon which the police officers could have obtained a search warrant.
-
322 S.E.2d 711 Supreme Court of Georgia November 21, 1984 No. 41199
The Cobb County Police obtained two search warrants.
that he was illegally arrested and carried to the place described in the search warrant.
This appellee was placed under arrest without an arrest warrant and transported from Cobb to Fulton County on the basis of two search warrants. Search warrants will not suffice. He was given no hearing.
-
304 S.E.2d 377 Supreme Court of Georgia June 28, 1983 No. 39458
The car and two suspects were transported to the Americus police department. A search warrant was obtained, a thorough search conducted, and $159 in bills plus $1.86 in change was found.
The car was spotted by police and stopped, the occupants arrested, and the car driven to the police station and searched.
The Court in Carroll noted that while a search warrant might readily be obtained for a fixed premises, it is not always practicable for police to secure a warrant authorizing an automobile search, since a vehicle can be moved quickly
-
314 S.E.2d 621 Supreme Court of Georgia March 15, 1984 No. 40350
He parked his car for fear that, because he had been drinking, he was going to be stopped by the police if he continued driving. They proceeded to his trailer in her car. Upon their arrival, she went to the bathroom.
On January 18,1982, another warrant was issued for the search of appellant’s home, but officers did not actually enter the house (they searched underneath it).
On March 29, officers made their final application for a search warrant. The supporting affidavit was similar to previous ones.
-
647 S.E.2d 15 Supreme Court of Georgia June 25, 2007 No. S07A0124
Without her permission, appellant took the second friend’s car, and the first friend’s truck was found .25 miles from the second friend’s home.
The police impounded the truck, taped it closed, and had it towed to a fenced area behind the police department’s offices, where it was stored while the police applied for and received a search warrant for the vehicle.
Appellant asserts the trial court erred in failing to suppress the results of the search of the truck that was conducted pursuant to a search warrant because the police seized the vehicle prior to having a search warrant.
-
219 S.E.2d 768 Supreme Court of Georgia October 28, 1975 No. 29997
Appellant argues that these items of physical evidence (prints, boots, trousers, hair and tires) were obtained form him while he was being illegally detained by the police from July 6 to July 9, 1973, without a warrant.
Now, isn't it a fact that at the time you took those clothes you had not had an arrest warrant? A. I did not have a warrant. Q. You did not have a search warrant? A. I did not have a search warrant. Q.
Section 27-207 provides an arrest may be made by an officer without a warrant only if the offense is committed in his presence; or, the offender is endeavoring to escape; or, for other *450 cause there is likely to be a failure of
-
213 S.E.2d 689 Supreme Court of Georgia February 25, 1975 No. 29552,
and Parker, was actually out of gas; Hobbs and Parker went in search of gasoline while Woodruff remained with the car; a maroon automobile, which one victim testified went down the road after the green car had passed, could have stopped
Is that your normal police procedure when you are chasing a car just to shoot a warning shot right through the car? A. If they won’t stop, it is. Q. Well, you hadn’t given him much chance to stop.
Woodruff last alleges that his motion to suppress evidence of the gun found in the automobile should have been granted because the search was illegally conducted without a warrant.
-
740 S.E.2d 590 Supreme Court of Georgia March 25, 2013 No. S12A1626
And when we review a ruling on a motion to suppress following the issuance of a search warrant, “[w]e review the search warrant to determine the existence of probable cause using the totality of the circumstances analysis set forth
(a) (2), including, as here, an allegation that the warrant was issued without probable cause, the State satisfies its initial burden ‘by production of the warrant and its supporting affidavit, and by showing either by those documents
But our holding that the search of the car was valid renders this claim of error meritless.
-
297 S.E.2d 237 Supreme Court of Georgia November 16, 1982 No. 38873
After talking with defendant, police took possession of several articles of defendant’s clothing and examined defendant’s car and apartment with defendant’s wife’s permission.
The police officers here had ample evidence of probable cause to arrest defendant without a warrant. They knew a burglary and an aggravated assault had been committed and the perpetrator of these crimes had been shot.
Code Ann. § 27-313 (a) (1) creates a statutory exclusionary rule for searches and seizures without a warrant.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.