Opinion ID: 1391108
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Georgia's Statutory Right to Suppression.

Text: I further maintain that Georgia has accorded all of its citizens a statutory right to the suppression of unconstitutionally seized evidence if the seizure-victim is being criminally prosecuted by the State. In 1966 the Georgia Legislature enacted a statute entitled Criminal Procedure  Searches and Seizures. The caption of this Act stated: An Act to provide procedures for searches and seizures and for suppression of evidence illegally seized; to provide the procedure connected therewith; to repeal Chapter 27-3 of the Code of Georgia relating to search warrants; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes. Ga. L. 1966, p. 567. Sec. 13 of that Act provided that a defendant aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure could make a motion to suppress the items that he contended to have been illegally seized. It provided that the trial judge should hear evidence to determine the motion; it provided that the burden of proving that the search and seizure were lawful is on the State; and it further provided that if the trial judge granted the motion, the seized items would not be admissible in evidence against the movant in any trial. This statute accorded a seizure-victim a right of judicial review and a right of suppression. It acknowledged that the right to a fair prosecution by the State is an integral part of a fair trial conducted by the State. It further recognized that the retention by the State and the prosecutorial use by the State of items that had been originally seized in an unconstitutional manner were a continuing violation of the original constitutional infraction. The majority says that this statute has no application in this case because it applies only to searches and seizures made by peace officers. I say that this statute establishes the criminal procedure to be used in the Georgia criminal courts, and that it is applicable to all agents of the State, whether they be peace officers, school officials, or municipal fire or public health inspectors. In short, I think that the majority has watered down a statutory, procedural and substantive right to suppression accorded to all seizure-victims prosecuted criminally by the State.