 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bragg v. State4/30/2001
MI-003C
Executing a search warrant, police found in Stephen Bragg's residence and car 28.5 grams of cocaine, 172 MDMA ("Ecstasy") tablets, ten pounds of marijuana, a rifle, and more than $19,000.00 in cash. Following an evidentiary hearing the court denied his motion to suppress, and following a bench trial it convicted him of trafficking in cocaine, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, possession of MDMA with intent to distribute, and possession of a firearm during the commission of the above crimes. He appeals, citing as the sole error the denial of his motion to suppress. He argues that the underlying affidavit for the search warrant failed to show probable cause and that the officer omitted key information in making the affidavit. We disagree and affirm.
1. With regard to the facts, appellate review of a trial court's order denying a motion to suppress follows three principles:
First, the trial judge sits as the trier of facts, and his findings are analogous to a jury verdict and should not be disturbed if there is any evidence to support the findings. Second, the trial court's decisions on the credibility of witnesses and questions of fact must be accepted unless clearly erroneous. Third, the appellate court must construe the evidence most favorably to the upholding of the trial court's findings and judgments.
So construed, the officer's warrant affidavit and his oral testimony authorized the following:
Confidential informant No. 1 told police that illegal drugs (specifically cocaine) were being sold from Johnson Mobile Home Park, Lot No. 44. Although the affiant told the magistrate that this informant was a reliable source, he did not inform the magistrate why the informant was considered reliable or his prior history in giving information to police. Police attempted to set up a controlled purchase by providing No. 1 with county funds for the purchase of drugs from Lot No. 44 and by setting up surveillance of No. 1's residence and of Lot No. 44. No. 1 knew someone who could buy drugs from Lot No. 44 and arranged to have that person come and pick up the money from No. 1's residence.
Police observed an unknown man (unnamed informant No. 2) arrive at No. 1's residence in a vehicle and then leave and drive to Lot No. 44. No. 1 informed police via phone that No. 2 had come to No. 1's residence, picked up the cash, and was driving a particular vehicle to purchase drugs from Lot No. 44. Police observed No. 2 exit his vehicle at Lot No. 44, go into the residence for a few minutes, and then leave. His route was the way back to No. 1's residence.
Police stopped No. 2's car and, obtaining his consent, searched the vehicle, finding cocaine just outside the car in a plastic bag. They arrested No. 2 for possession of cocaine and took him to the police station. No. 2 confessed that he had just purchased the cocaine found near his vehicle from Stephen Bragg at Lot No. 44 and that he had purchased cocaine from Bragg at this location at least 100 times.
No. 1 informed police that Bragg drove a white Mustang car, which police observed at Lot No. 44 and which they confirmed was registered to Bragg's girlfriend. Based on the totality of this sworn information, the magistrate found probable cause and issued a search warrant for Lot No. 44, which led to the discovery of the evidence at issue.
2. The question on appeal is whether the sworn testimony given to the magistrate, both oral and written, provided him a substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed to issue the search warrant. In determining probable cause, the magistrate's task is simply to make a practical, common-sense d
Page 1 2 3 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|