Davis v. State

6 Citing cases

  1. Gary v. State

    262 Ga. 573 (Ga. 1992)   Cited 85 times
    Holding that OCGA § 17-5-30 created a Georgia statutory exclusionary rule that did not contain the good faith exception to the federal exclusionary rule recognized in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677

    We granted certiorari to determine a question of first impression in Georgia: whether the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule enunciated in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 ( 104 S.C. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677) (1984) is applicable as a matter of state law in Georgia. While the Court of Appeals has applied the Leon "good faith exception" in several cases (see Parris v. State, 205 Ga. App. 48 ( 421 S.E.2d 137) (1992); Taylor v. State, 204 Ga. App. 236 ( 419 S.E.2d 56) (1992); State v. Smith, 201 Ga. App. 650 ( 411 S.E.2d 877) (1991); Talley v. State, 200 Ga. App. 442 ( 408 S.E.2d 463) (1991); State v. Morris, 198 Ga. App. 441 ( 402 S.E.2d 288) (1991); Davis v. State, 198 Ga. App. 310 ( 401 S.E.2d 326) (1991); Singleton v. State, 193 Ga. App. 778 ( 389 S.E.2d 269) (1989); Williams v. State, 193 Ga. App. 677 ( 388 S.E.2d 893) (1989); Betha v. State, 192 Ga. App. 789 ( 386 S.E.2d 515) (1989); Debey v. State, 192 Ga. App. 512 ( 385 S.E.2d 694) (1989); State v. Evans, 192 Ga. App. 216 ( 384 S.E.2d 404) (1989); Adams v. state, 191 Ga. App. 916 ( 383 S.E.2d 378) (1989); Masson v. State, 191 Ga. App. 463 ( 382 S.E.2d 139) (1989); Rodriguez v. State, 191 Ga. App. 241 ( 381 S.E.2d 529) (1989)), we have not had occasion to address the issue. After their home was searched pursuant to a search warrant, appellants Ronald and Alma Gary were indicted for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute .

  2. Dorminey v. State

    423 S.E.2d 698 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 10 times

    " Talley v. State, 204 Ga. App. 442, 445 (3d) ( 408 S.E.2d 463) (1991). See also Taylor v. State, 204 Ga. App. 236, 237 (2) ( 419 S.E.2d 56) (1992); Davis v. State, 198 Ga. App. 310 (1) ( 401 S.E.2d 326) Case No. A92A1464

  3. Parris v. State

    205 Ga. App. 48 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 2 times

    Accordingly, we focus on whether the officer could have harbored an objectively reasonable belief in the existence of probable cause to search appellant's residence. See Davis v. State, 198 Ga. App. 310, 311 ( 401 S.E.2d 326) (1991). Our examination of the officer's affidavit reveals that it was not "`so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable,' [cit.

  4. Taylor v. State

    204 Ga. App. 236 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 4 times

    ]" Debey v. State, 192 Ga. App. 512, 513 ( 385 S.E.2d 694) (1989). "The affidavit [and oral testimony] submitted by the officer in the case sub judice is ... similar to the affidavit at issue in Davis v. State, 198 Ga. App. 310 ( 401 S.E.2d 326) (1991).... Here, as in Davis, `there are no allegations that the magistrate abandoned his detached and neutral role in issuing the warrant for the search of (appellant's) home. Further, there is no evidence that the affiant was dishonest or reckless in preparing the affidavit or that he could not have harbored an objectively reasonable belief in the existence of probable cause to search (appellant's) residence.

  5. State v. Gary

    201 Ga. App. 556 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 4 times
    In State v. Gary, 201 Ga. App. 556 (411 S.E.2d 536) (1991), this court reversed the trial court's grant of the appellees' motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of their home pursuant to a search warrant.

    We reverse. The affidavit submitted by the officer in the case sub judice is substantially similar to the affidavit at issue in Davis v. State, 198 Ga. App. 310 ( 401 S.E.2d 326) (1991). In that case we held that even assuming, without deciding, that the affidavit did not provide the issuing magistrate with probable cause to believe that contraband would be found in the defendant's residence, under United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (104 SC 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677) (1984) suppression of the seized evidence did not necessarily follow unless it was established that the magistrate in issuing the warrant abandoned his detached and neutral role or that the officer was dishonest or reckless in preparing the affidavit or that the officer could not have harbored an objectively reasonable belief in the existence of probable cause.

  6. Abercrombie v. State

    343 Ga. App. 774 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing Heien v. North Carolina , 574 U. S. 54, 60, 135 S.Ct. 530, 190 L.Ed.2d 475

    Gary, 262 Ga. at 575, 422 S.E.2d 426.See id. at 573 n.1, 422 S.E.2d 426 (recognizing that the Court of Appeals of Georgia applied the Leon good-faith exception in Parris v. State, 205 Ga. App. 48, 421 S.E.2d 137 (1992) ); Taylor v. State, 204 Ga. App. 236, 419 S.E.2d 56 (1992) ; State v. Smith, 201 Ga. App. 650, 411 S.E.2d 877 (1991) ; Talley v. State, 200 Ga. App. 442, 408 S.E.2d 463 (1991) ; State v. Morris, 198 Ga. App. 441, 402 S.E.2d 288 (1991) ; Davis v. State, 198 Ga. App. 310, 401 S.E.2d 326 (1991) ; Singleton v. State, 193 Ga. App. 778, 389 S.E.2d 269 (1989) ; Williams v. State, 193 Ga. App. 677, 388 S.E.2d 893 (1989) ; Betha v. State, 192 Ga. App. 789, 386 S.E.2d 515 (1989) ; Debey v. State, 192 Ga. App. 512, 385 S.E.2d 694 (1989) ; State v. Evans, 192 Ga. App. 216, 384 S.E.2d 404 (1989) ; Adams v. State, 191 Ga. App. 916, 383 S.E.2d 378 (1989) ; Masson v. State, 191 Ga. App. 463, 382 S.E.2d 139 (1989) ; Rodriguez v. State, 191 Ga. App. 241, 381 S.E.2d 529 (1989) ). Since Gary, our appellate courts have reiterated (not without offering criticism at times ) that Georgia does not recognize a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.