Court Opinion

ID: 9624701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:14:08.675795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:53.172631
License: Public Domain

Quillian, Judge,
dissenting. One of the grounds of the motion to suppress was that the defendant was not given an inventory of the articles seized by the search which was made without a warrant. Code Ann, § 27-302 (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 567, 568) provides: "An inventory of all instruments, articles or things seized on a search without a warrant shall be given to the person arrested and a copy thereof delivered to the judicial officer before whom the person arrested is taken. If the person arrested is released without a charge being preferred against him all instruments, articles or things seized, other than contraband or stolen property, shall be returned to him upon release.” In Murby v. United States, 293 F 849, 852, it was held: "While in this warrant, supra, there is no express direction to the officer to give (or leave) such copy and receipt (plainly the better practice, Giles v. United States [C. C. A.] 284 F 208, 215), there is a *173direction to the officer 'to do and report concerning the same as the law directs.’ This direction was enough, but the return does not 'report’ that the officer did 'as the law directs.’ If, in fact, this provision (section 12) was complied with, the return should have shown it — affirmatively. If it was not complied with, the search warrant proceedings were void, and the evidence obtained thereby inadmissible. Paine v. Farr, 118 Mass. 74; Kent v. Willey, 11 Gray (Mass.) 368, 373; Gibson v. Holmes, 78 Vt. 110, 121, 62 A 11, 4 LRA (NS) 451; Turner v. Lowry, 2 Aik. 72, 75; Tubbs v. Tukey, 3 Cush. 438, 440, 50 AD 744.”
In the case sub judice no inventory of the goods recovered in the first search was given the defendant as required by statute. Although this may be a technical irregularity, it is of such nature as to affect the defendant’s substantial rights. See Code Ann. § 27,312 (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 567, 571). Compare Waters v. State, 122 Ga. App. 808 (2) (178 SE2d 770).
For the foregoing reasons, I dissent from Division 1 of the majority opinion.
I am authorized to state that Judges Pannell and Evans concur in this dissent.