Walker v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Walker v. State

222 S.E.2d 676, 136 Ga. App. 857, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1512

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 3, 1975

Docket51230

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 222 S.E.2d 676 (Walker v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walker v. State, 222 S.E.2d 676, 136 Ga. App. 857, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1512 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Pannell, Presiding Judge.

The trial court overruled defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. He appeals pursuant to a certificate for immediate review.

*858 Submitted October 8, 1975 Decided December 3, 1975. Stephen A. Land, for appellant. John R. Thompson, Solicitor, J. Michael Florence, Assistant Solicitor, for appellee.

Appellant argues that the affidavit in support of the search warrant did not state the time of the occurrence in question; and accordingly, the magistrate could not make a determination as to whether the information was current or stale. See Fowler v. State, 121 Ga. App. 22, 24 (172 SE2d 447).

"The use of the present tense in an affidavit to support a search warrant ('affiant has received information from a reliable informant that subject is selling drugs at the house located’ etc.), in light of other recited circumstances, is sufficient to show that the facts recited are current and not stale. Johnston v. State, 227 Ga. 387, 390 (181 SE2d 42); Fowler v. State, 121 Ga. App. 22, 23 (172 SE2d 447); Lewis v. State, 126 Ga. App. 123 (2b) (190 SE2d 123); Butler v. State, 127 Ga. App. 539 (1) (194 SE2d 261).” Covington v. State, 129 Ga. App. 150 (199 SE2d 348). The present affidavit, dated November 12, 1974, states in pertinent part: "Received information from a reliable and confidential informant on the 5th day of November, 1972... states that the above named person is engaged in the operation of a lottery at the above address. Informant states that he has been present when the above named person has accepted both money and numbers for the purpose of the lottery from others. Since receiving the above information we have watched the above address with our informant and have seen persons going to the address, our informant says he knows play the lottery with Curtis Walker. The last date we watched the above was November 11, 1974.” The use of the present tense "is engaged,” in light of the other recited circumstances, was sufficient to show the magistrate that the information relied upon was current and not stale. See Covington v. State, supra; Lewis v. State, 126 Ga. App. 123, 128 (190 SE2d 123); Danford v. State, 133 Ga. App. 890 (212 SE2d 501).

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian and Clark, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pannell, Presiding Judge.

The trial court overruled defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. He appeals pursuant to a certificate for immediate review.

*858 Submitted October 8, 1975 Decided December 3, 1975. Stephen A. Land, for appellant. John R. Thompson, Solicitor, J. Michael Florence, Assistant Solicitor, for appellee.

Appellant argues that the affidavit in support of the search warrant did not state the time of the occurrence in question; and accordingly, the magistrate could not make a determination as to whether the information was current or stale. See Fowler v. State, 121 Ga. App. 22, 24 (172 SE2d 447).

"The use of the present tense in an affidavit to support a search warrant ('affiant has received information from a reliable informant that subject is selling drugs at the house located’ etc.), in light of other recited circumstances, is sufficient to show that the facts recited are current and not stale. Johnston v. State, 227 Ga. 387, 390 (181 SE2d 42); Fowler v. State, 121 Ga. App. 22, 23 (172 SE2d 447); Lewis v. State, 126 Ga. App. 123 (2b) (190 SE2d 123); Butler v. State, 127 Ga. App. 539 (1) (194 SE2d 261).” Covington v. State, 129 Ga. App. 150 (199 SE2d 348). The present affidavit, dated November 12, 1974, states in pertinent part: "Received information from a reliable and confidential informant on the 5th day of November, 1972... states that the above named person is engaged in the operation of a lottery at the above address. Informant states that he has been present when the above named person has accepted both money and numbers for the purpose of the lottery from others. Since receiving the above information we have watched the above address with our informant and have seen persons going to the address, our informant says he knows play the lottery with Curtis Walker. The last date we watched the above was November 11, 1974.” The use of the present tense "is engaged,” in light of the other recited circumstances, was sufficient to show the magistrate that the information relied upon was current and not stale. See Covington v. State, supra; Lewis v. State, 126 Ga. App. 123, 128 (190 SE2d 123); Danford v. State, 133 Ga. App. 890 (212 SE2d 501).

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian and Clark, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 S.E.2d 676, 136 Ga. App. 857, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-state-gactapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack