Court Opinion

ID: 9847990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:10:59.083896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:53.237108
License: Public Domain

Hall, Presiding Judge,
dissenting. In my opinion the motion to suppress should have been sustained as to items found inside the house. The affidavit contains the following allegations in support of a showing of probable cause: "I have information from an informer who has been used in the past and has been reliable. And from surveillance of the above premises does believe that stolen good from Judge Elliot’s cabin in Juniper are in Fryer cabin and premises at this time.” While this is sufficient to show reliability, it fails to set forth any information to support his "belief” in the above conclusion. Grebe v. State, 125 Ga. App. 873 (189 SE2d 698); Sams v. State, 121 Ga. App. 46 (172 SE2d 473); Johnson v. State, 121 Ga. App. 477 (174 SE2d 246). Lewis v. State, 126 Ga. App. 123, 127 (190 SE2d 123), is distinguishable because the affidavit in that case, after a similar conclusion, stated "and the facts tending to establish the foregoing grounds for issuance of a search warrant are as follows: Items listed above were actually seen by the affiant in the yard and on premises to be searched.”
*455While the sheriff testified at the hearing on the motion to suppress that he saw stolen items outside the house and then obtained a warrant to enter and search the premises, all this is immaterial to the validity of the warrant. It is elementary that the burden is on the State to show that sufficient facts were submitted to the magistrate to establish the existence of probable cause. Marshall v. State, 113 Ga. App. 143, 144 (147 SE2d 666).
The appellant has standing to complain of the illegal search not only because he meets one of the traditional tests (having a possessory interest in the premises searched) but also because those tests have been superseded by the broad concept of "reasonable expectation of privacy.” Any requirement of claiming an interest in the property seized has been specifically repudiated. See Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257 (80 SC 725, 4 LE2d 697, 78 ALR2d 233); Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (88 SC 507, 19 LE2d 576); Wood v. State, 224 Ga. 121 (160 SE2d 368).
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Eberhardt and Judges Deen and Stolz concur in this dissent.