Peters v. State, 152 S.E.2d 647 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966). · Go Syfert
Search
Peters v. State, 152 S.E.2d 647 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
91 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Stephens, 311 S.E.2d 823 (Ga. 1984)
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1967 1996 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
114 Ga. App. at 596 “It is well settled that an arrest may be made upon hearsay evidence; and indeed, the ‘reasonable cause’ necessary to support an arrest cannot demand the same strictness of proof as the accused’s guilt upon a trial, unless the powers of peace officers are to be so cut down that they cannot possibly…”14 citing cases3 citing courts quote it
  • State v. Stephens, 311 S.E.2d 823 (Ga. 1984).published 2 cites
    They are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians act.” See also Peters v. State, 114 Ga. App. 595, 596 ( 152 SE2d 647 ) (1966).
  • Nelson v. State, 286 S.E.2d 504 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981).published
    “reasonable cause” necessary to support an arrest cannot demand the same strictness of proof as the accused’s guilt upon a trial, unless the powers of peace officers are to be so cut down that they cannot possibly perfor…”
  • Duffy v. State, 275 S.E.2d 658 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980).published
    “It is well settled that an arrest may be made upon hearsay evidence; and indeed, the ‘reasonable cause’ necessary to support an arrest cannot demand the same strictness of proof as the accused’s guilt upon a trial, unle…”
  • Thompson v. State, 270 S.E.2d 313 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980).published
    “the constitutional validity of the arrest without a warrant depends ‘upon whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had probable cause to make it — whether at that moment the facts and circumstances withi…”
  • Reese v. State, 243 S.E.2d 650 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978).published
    He was accordingly authorized to make the arrest pursuant to Code Ann. § 27-207 to prevent a "failure of justice for want of an officer to issue a warrant.” See Sanders v. State, 235 Ga. 425, 440 ( 219 SE2d 768 ) (1975); Peters v. State, 1…
  • Ricks v. State, 231 S.E.2d 113 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976).published
    See Beck v. Ohio, 379 U. S. 89, 91 (85 SC 223, 13 LE2d 142); Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143, 146 (92 SC 1921, 32 LE2d 612); Brisbane v. State, 233 Ga. 339, 341 ( 211 SE2d 294 ); Peters v. State, 114 Ga. App. 595, 596 ( 152 SE2d 647 ).
  • Creecy v. State, 221 S.E.2d 17 (Ga. 1975).published
    The constitutional and statutory tests for the validity of an arrest without a warrant are set forth in Peters v. State, 114 Ga. App. 595, 596 ( 152 SE2d 647 ) *543 (1966), adopted by this court in Strauss v. Stynchcombe, 224 Ga. 859, 865…
  • Sanders v. State, 219 S.E.2d 768 (Ga. 1975).published 2 cites
    The sheriff stated he sent his deputy for the appellant because of, "The mud on the floor inside the house, the tire tracks in the driveway, and his absence for an hour and a half period when Mrs. Hunnicutt had to have been killed." As sta…
  • Cochran v. State, 220 S.E.2d 83 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975).published
    The affiant-sheriff testified that he didn’t tell the magistrate that he had ever stopped any cars coming out of the defendant’s residence, but that he had seen a lot of traffic coming away from "the place,” had stopped some of them, had s…
  • Baxter v. State, 214 S.E.2d 578 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975).published 2 cites
    As Judge Learned Hand said in United States v. Heitner, 149 F2d 105, 106 (CA 2d Cir.): "It is well settled that an arrest may be made upon hearsay *289 evidence; and indeed, the `reasonable cause' necessary to support an arrest cannot dema…
Show 4 more citing cases
  • L.Y.N.N. v. State, 204 S.E.2d 346 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974).published
    “reasonable cause” necessary to support an arrest cannot demand the same strictness of proof as the accused’s guilt upon a trial, unless the powers of peace officers are to be so cut down that they cannot possibly perfor…”
  • Hornsby v. State, 185 S.E.2d 623 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971).published
    Strauss v. Stynchcombe, 224 Ga. 859, 863 ( 165 SE2d 302 ); Peters v. State, 114 Ga. App. 595, 596 ( 152 SE2d 647 ).
  • Strauss v. Stynchcombe, 165 S.E.2d 302 (Ga. 1968).published
    In this regard we think the complete answer to the appellant’s contentions is set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals in the case of Peters v. State, 114 Ga. App. 595, 596 ( 152 SE2d 647 ), together with the authorities there quot…
  • Holloman v. State, 211 S.E.2d 312 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974).published 2 cites
    See also Peters v. State, 114 Ga. App. 595, 596 ( 152 SE2d 647 ) where this court quoted with approval from United States v. Heitner, 149 F2d 105, 106, that "It is well settled that an arrest may be made upon hearsay evidence; and indeed,…
114 Ga. App. at 597 “The requirements ofparticularity of the information on which an officer must act without a warrant 'cannot be less stringent than where an arrest warrant is obtained.’ Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 479-480 (83 SC 407, 9 LE2d 441)”1 citing case1 citing court quotes it
  • State v. Taylor, 241 S.E.2d 50 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).published
    “The requirements ofparticularity of the information on which an officer must act without a warrant 'cannot be less stringent than where an arrest warrant is obtained.’ Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 479-480 (…”
Other citing cases3 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Peters
v.
the State
42311.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Oct 31, 1966.
Published opinion
152 S.E.2d 647
1966 Ga. App. LEXIS 862
A. L. Haden, Jr., for appellant., W. B. Skvpworth, Jr., Solicitor General, Frank K. Martin, for appellee.
Hall, Nichols, Peen.
Cited by 45 opinions  |  Published
Hall, Judge.

The defendant appeals from his conviction and sentence of 15 years for burglary, contending that he was arrested illegally without a warrant and that evidence ob[*596] tained from his person without a search warrant after the arrest while he was under interrogation was therefore inadmissible at the trial. The constitutional validity of the search and the admissibility of the evidence produced thereby depend upon whether the defendant’s arrest without a warrant was lawful. Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23, 34, 41 (83 SC 1623, 10 LE2d 726); Raif v. State, 109 Ga. App. 354 (136 SE2d 169).

Under Code § 27-207 an officer of this state may arrest without a warrant “if the offense is committed in his presence, or the offender is endeavoring to escape, or for other cause there is likely to be a failure of justice for want of an officer to issue a warrant.” Whether or not the arrest violated this statute, the constitutional validity of the arrest without a warrant depends “upon whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had probable cause to make it—whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the [defendant] had committed or was committing an offense.” Beck v. Ohio, 379 U. S. 89, 91 (85 SC 223, 13 LE2d 142). “In dealing with probable cause, ... as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities. They are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.” Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 175 (69 SC 1302, 93 LE 1879). There is also a great “difference between what is required to prove guilt in a criminal case and what is required to show probable cause for arrest or search.” Draper v. United States, 358 U. S. 307, 311-312 (79 SC 329, 3 LE2d 327). As Judge Learned Hand said in United States v. Heitner, 149 F2d 105, 106 (C.A. 2d Cir.): “It is well settled that an arrest may be made upon hearsay evidence; and indeed, the ‘reasonable cause’ necessary to support an arrest cannot demand the same strictness of proof as the accused’s guilt upon a trial, unless the powers of peace officers are to be so cut down that they cannot possibly perform their duties.”

While there is testimony in this case that the officers had information from a reliable source that this defendant was con[*597] nected with the burglary, there is nothing in the record to indicate the facts of which they were informed other than that the defendant was about to leave town. The requirements of particularity of the information on which an' officer must act without a warrant “cannot be less stringent than where an arrest warrant is obtained.” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 479-480 (83 SC 407, 9 LE2d 441). “When the constitutional validity of an arrest is challenged, it is the function of a court to determine whether the facts available to the officers at the moment of arrest would 'warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief’ that an offense had been committed. Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 162 [45 SC 280, 69 LE 543], If the court is not informed of the facts upon which the arresting officers acted, it cannot properly discharge that function.” Beck v. Ohio, supra, 96.

The evidence in this case that officers possessed unspecified information that made them strongly suspect the defendant cannot support a finding of probable cause. The record does not show the legality of the warrantless arrest. It necessarily follows that the search and seizure are not shown to be legal. We realize that it is possible that the informer did in fact relate information to the officers in this case which constituted probable cause for the defendant’s arrest. However, “when the constitutional validity of that arrest was challenged, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to show with considerably more specificity than was shown in this case what the informer actually said. . .” Beck v. Ohio, supra, 97.

Judgment reversed and neiu trial granted.

Nichols, P. J., and Peen, J., concur.