 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mitchell v. State8/30/1999
and (3) stated he purchased crack cocaine from Mitchell within the last five days.
Therefore, applying the guidelines set out in Bowe, the affidavit contained the type of information previously supplied by the informant, the use to which that information was put, and the elapsed time since the information was furnished.
Mitchell argues the officer omitted information on the informants's relationship with another officer, including any agreements made with that officer, and also the informant's criminal history and drug problem. But, beyond this conclusory allegation in the brief, Mitchell does not point out, nor do we find, anything in the record to support this allegation. Rather, the affiant testified at the hearing that he did not know whether the informant was being investigated for any crime, and knew nothing about any arrangement with another officer arising out of the informant's criminal past.
Therefore, Robertson v. State, 236 Ga. App. 68 (510 SE2d 914) (1999), relied on by Mitchell, is not on point. In Robertson, the police officer who submitted the affidavit had arrested the informant for DUI and, while this charge was pending, the informant called the officer and offered to give him information about Robertson if the officer would "help" him with the DUI charge. Moreover, the informant was angry with Robertson for making sexual advances to the informant's girl friend. Robertson, supra at 69. When the officer swore out the affidavit, he did not give any of this information to the magistrate. Therefore, this Court concluded that the magistrate was deprived of the opportunity to independently determine the reliability of the informant. Id. at 70.
Here, there is no evidence the officer withheld any relevant information from the magistrate. Instead, this case is similar to Clark v. State, 235 Ga. App. 569 (510 SE2d 319) (1998) and Pitts v. State, 212 Ga. App. 556 (442 SE2d 797) (1994). In Clark, the investigator had known the informant for three years, the informant had provided reliable information to the affiant, had been in the saloon within the past 72 hours and had seen the owners and a bartender with methamphetamines and cocaine. Clark, supra at 571.Likewise in Pitts, the affiant, using information supplied by another officer, stated that the informant had given information in the past which resulted in arrests and seizures of controlled substances and had purchased a quantity of marijuana at the residence in question within the last ten days. This Court found the affidavit sufficient to demonstrate the informant's reliability. Pitts, supra at 557.
Comparing the affidavit in this case to the affidavits found sufficient in Clark and Pitts, we conclude the information in the affidavit was sufficient to show that the confidential informant was reliable. Therefore, the magistrate was authorized to find that the affidavit contained reliable information providing probable cause to suspect that drugs would be found in Mitchell's house. Clark, supra at 571.
2. In light of our holding in Division 1, we need not address Mitchell's remaining enumeration of error.
Judgment affirmed. McMurray, P. J., and Ruffin, J., concur.
Page 1 2 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|