FI FTH DI VI SI ON

M CFA DDEN, P. J.

, RA Y and RI CKM A N, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

A u gust 3, 2018



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 8 A1 29 4 . J O YNER v

. THE STATE.

M C F A D D E N , Pres id i n g J u d g e.

Th e d i s p o s i t i v e i s s u e i n t h i s ap p eal i s wh et h er a p ro b at e co u rt ju d g e h ad t h e

au t h o ri t y t o i s s u e a s earch warran t . Pu rs u an t t o O CGA § § 1 7 -5 -2 1 (a) an d 1 7 -7 -2 0,

t h e p ro bat e co u rt j u d ge was v es t ed wi t h s u ch au t ho ri t y

. W e t h erefo re affi rm t h e t ri al

co u rt ’ s o rd er f

i n d i n g t h at th e s earch warran t was v al i d an d den y i n g a m o t i o n to

s u p p res s

.

1

. Fa ct s a n d p r o ced

ur a l p o s t u r e.

On M ay 2 4

, 2 0 1 6

, l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cers co nd u ct ed aeri al s u rv ei l l an ce o v er

J o h n J o y n er’ s p ro p ert y i n Screv en Co u nt y an d o bs erv ed s us p ect ed m ari ju an a p l an t s

.

Th at s am e d ay

, an o ffi cer ap p l i ed fo r an d o b t ai n ed a search warran t fo r J o y n er’ s

res i den ce. T h e s earch w arran t was i s s u ed b y t h e ch i ef ju d g e o f t he Screv en Co u n t yPro b at e Co u rt

. Offi cers ex ecu t ed t h e s earch w arran t an d s ei zed n u m ero u s i t em s fro m

J o y n er’ s p ro p ert y

. J o y n er was s u b s eq u en t l y i nd i ct ed fo r m u l t ip l e fel o n y offen s es

,

i n cl u d i n g m an u fact u ri n g m ari ju an a, p os s es s i on o f m et h am p h et am i n e, t h eft by

recei v i ng s t o l en p ro p ert y , an d p o s s es s i o n o f a fi rearm b y a co n v i ct ed fel o n.

J o y n er f i l e d a m o t i o n t o s u p pres s ev i den ce o f th e i t em s s ei zed fro m h i s

p ro p ert y

, arg u in g t h a t t h e s earch warran t was i n v al i d b ecau s e i t was i s s ued b y a

p ro b at e co u rt ju d g e. Th e t ri al co u rt d en i ed t h e m o t i o n, fi n d i n g t h at t h e p ro b at e co u rt

ju d g e was au t h o ri zed t o i s s u e t h e s earch warran t

. T h e t ri al co urt i s su ed a cert i fi cat e

o f i m m ed i at e rev i ew, an d th is c o u rt g ran t ed J o y n er’ s ap p li cat i o n fo r i n t erl o cu t o ry

rev i ew. Th i s ap p eal fo l l o wed

.

2

. Den i a l o f mo t i o n t o s u

p p r es s

.

J o y n er co n t en d s t h at t h e p ro b at e co u rt ju d g e l ack ed t he au t h o ri t y t o i s s u e t h e

s earch warran t an d t h erefo re t h e t ri al co u rt erred in d en y i n g h i s m o t io n t o s u p p res s

.

W e d i s ag ree.

“ [A] n y ju d i ci al o ffi cer au t h o ri zed t o h o l d a co u rt o f in qu i ry t o ex am i n e i n t o an

arres t o f an o ffen d er ag ai n st t h e p en al l aws

. . . m ay i s su e a s earch warran t [.] ” OCGA

§ 1 7 -5 -2 1 (a). Acco rd S t a te v. Va r n er

, 2 4 8 Ga. 34 7 (2 8 3 SE2 d 2 6 8 ) (1 9 8 1 ) ( s e a r c h

warran t m ay b e is s u ed b y an y j u d i ci al o ffi cer au t ho ri zed t o ho l d a co u rt of in q u i ry ).

2Th e ju d i ci al offi cers au t h o ri zed t o h o l d a co urt o f i n q u i ry are s et fo rt h i n OCGA § 1 7

-

7 -2 0

, wh i ch i n cl u d es p ro b at e co u rt ju d g es

. “ A n y ju d g e o f a s u p e r i o r o r s tat e co u rt

,

j u d g e o f t h e pr o b a t e co u r t

, m ag i st rat e, o r o ffi cer o f a m u n i ci p al i t y wh o h as t h e

cri m i n al ju ri s d ict i o n o f a m ag i st rat e ma y h o l d a co u r t of i n qu i r

y [.] ” OCGA § 1 7 -7 -2 0

(em p h as i s s u p p l i ed ). Ci t i n g th es e t wo co d e s e c t i o n s

, o u r Su p rem e Co u rt h as

ex p lai n ed t h at “ Geo rg i a s tat u t es v es t n u m ero us l es s er co u rt s

. . . w i th t h e j u ri s d i ct i o n

t o hear ap p l i cat i o n s fo r s earch warran t s an d i s s u e search warran t s u p o n a fi n d i n g o f

p ro b ab l e cau s e.” St a t e v. Lej eu n e

, 2 7 7 Ga. 7 4 9

, 75 1 (1 ) (5 9 4 SE 2 d 6 3 7 ) (2 0 0 4 )

(ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ). Pro bat e c o u r t s a r e o ne of t hes e les s er co u rt s v es t ed wi t h t h e

ju ri s d i ct i o n t o i s s u e s earch warran ts

.

In t h e i n s t an t cas e, b ecau s e t h e p ro b a t e co urt ju dg e w as au th o ri zed t o h o l d a

co u rt of i n q u i ry u n der OCGA § 1 7 -7 -2 0

, t h e p ro b at e co u rt ju d g e was al s o au t h o ri zed

t o i s s u e a s earch warran t p u rs u an t t o O C G A § 1 7

- 5 -2 1 (a). 1 See g en eral l y Lej eu ne

,

s u p ra at 7 5 1 -7 5 2 (fi n d in g t hat m ag i s t rat e co urt s m ay i s s ue s earch warran ts ); Va r n er

,

s u p ra at 3 4 8 (h o l d i n g t hat ju s t i ces o f th e peace are au t h o ri zed to h o l d co u rt s o f

i n q u i ry an d t h u s m ay i s s u e search warran t s ); Ca mp b e l l v

. S t a t e

, 2 0 7 Ga. Ap p

. 3 6 6,

1 W e n o t e t h at an u n o ffi ci al o p i n i o n o f t h e at t o rn ey gen eral fo u n d th at p ro b at e

co u rt ju d g es h av e th e au t h o ri t y u n d er OCGA § 17 -5 -2 1 t o i s s u e s earch warran t s

. Op

. At t y . Gen . No . U8 3 -1 3 (M arch 1 7 , 1 9 8 3 ).

33 6 7 -3 6 8 (2 ) (4 2 8 SE2 d 11 1 ) (1 9 93 ) ( h o l d i n g t h at a m u n ici p al co u rt ju d g e h ad

au t h o ri t y t o i s s u e a s earch warran t ).

Nev ert h el es s

, Jo y ner arg u es t h a t t h e s earch w arran t i n t h i s cas e was i n v al id

b ecau s e t h ere i s a s t at e co u rt i n Screv en Co u nt y an d OCGA § 4 0 -1 3-2 1 (b ), wh i ch i s

s et o u t i n t h e m ar g i n

, 2 s h o u l d b e read t o p ro h ib i t pro b at e co u rt ju dg es fro m i s s u i n g

warran t s i n co u n t i es w h ere th ere i s al s o a s t at e co u rt

. Bu t J o y n er’ s rel i an ce o n OCGA

§ 4 0-1 3-2 1 (b ) i s m i s p l aced

. Th at co d e s ect i o n i s p art o f o ur m o t o r veh i cl es co d e an d

g o v e rn s t h e j u ri s d i ct i o n o f pro bat e co u rt s i n “ m i s dem ean o r cas es ari si ng un d er t h e

t raffi c l aws o f t h i s s t at e[.] ” OCGA § 4 0 -1 3 -2 1 (b ). So ev en i f t hat co d e s ect i o n co u ld

b e co n s tru ed t o d iv es t p ro b at e co u rt s o f t h e au t h o ri ty t o i s s u e s earch warran t s in

m i s d em ean o r t raffi c cas es i n co u n t ies w h e re th ere i s a s t at e co u rt

, i t h as n o

ap p li cab i l i t y t o th e i n s t an t cas e, wh ich i s no t a m i s d em ean or t raffi c cas e an d i n s t ead

i s a cas e i n v o l v i n g m

u l t i ple f e lony of f e n se s. “ A c c ord in gl y

, ap p el lan t ’ s co n t en t i o n t h at

t h e ju dg e was wi th ou t au t h o r i t y t o i s s u e t h e s earch w arran t in t hi s cas e i s wi t h o ut

m eri t .” Ca mp b el l , s u pra at 36 8 (2 ).

2 OCGA § 4 0 -1 3 -2 1 (b ) pro v id es : “ T h e p ro b at e co u rt s h al l h av e ju ri s di ct i o n to

i s su e warran ts

, try cas es

, an d i m p o s e s en t en ce t h ereo n i n a l l m i s d e m ean o r cas es

ari s in g u n d er t h e t raffi c laws o f t h i s s t at e i n al l co u n t i es o f t h i s s t at e i n wh i ch t h ere

i s n o ci t y , co u n t y

, o r s t at e co u rt , p ro v i d ed t h e d efen d an t wai v es a ju ry t ri al

. ”

4Ju d

g men t a f f i r m ed . Ra y a n d Ri ckma n , JJ., co ncu r

.

5