Miller v. State (1980)

Penny v. State, 248 Ga. App. 772, 775 (2) (b) ( 547 SE2d 367 ) (2001) (punctuation omitted); see also Slocum v. State, 267 Ga. App. 337, 338 ( 599 SE2d 299 ) (2004) (“Where the information is provided to police by an informant who is either an identified interested citizen or an identified victim of a crime, there is a presumption of reliability.”); Miller v. State, 155 Ga. App. 399, 400 (I) (A) ( 270 SE2d 822 ) (1980) (“[A] law-abiding citizen has a built-in credibility.”).

Miller v. State, 155 Ga. App. 399, 400 (1) (A) ( 270 SE2d 822 ) (1980).

Miller v. State, 155 Ga. App. 399, 400 (1) (A) ( 270 SE2d 822 ) (1980).

Finally, as we noted in Miller v. State, 155 Ga. App. 399, 401 (I) (B) ( 270 SE2d 822 ) (1980), in Vaughn , “the designation of a county appeared only in the certificate of the officer before whom the warrant was sworn and not the deposition of the affiant.” Vaughn is not controlling.

See, e.g., Landers v. State, 183 Ga. App. 691 -692 (1) ( 359 SE2d 748 ) (1987); Miller v. State, 155 Ga. App. 399, 401 (I) (B) ( 270 SE2d 822 ) (1980). 3.

See, e.g., Landers v. State, 183 Ga. App. 691 -692 (1) ( 359 SE2d 748 ) (1987); Miller v. State, 155 Ga. App. 399, 401 (I) (B) ( 270 SE2d 822 ) (1980). 3.

Such intent to exercise control may be inferred by the totality of the circumstances.”) (citations and punctuation omitted). 16 Leonard v. State, 228 Ga. App. 792, 796 (3) ( 492 SE2d 747 ), citing Walden v. State, 196 Ga. App. 844 ( 397 SE2d 182 ). 17 Id. 18 Moody v. State, 232 Ga. App. at 501-502 (1), supra (whether circumstances sufficient in a given case to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except guilt of accused is primarily a jury question). 19 Miller v. State, 155 G…

Relying upon the rationale of Tuzman for the distinction in application of the Aguilar-Spinelli standard, this court held in Miller v. State, 155 Ga. App. 399, 400 ( 270 SE2d 822 ) (1980), that “there is a sufficient showing of credibility and thus probability of truthfulness when the affiant can state to the magistrate that his investigation shows that the [unnamed] informant is indeed a law-abiding citizen or the informant is personally known to the affiant to be a law-abi…

Miller v. State, 155 Ga. App. 399, 401 ( 270 SE2d 822 ); Cuevas v. State, 151 Ga. App. 605, 611-612 ( 260 SE2d 737 ). (b) We also observe that the warrant gave an exact location and limited the area, things, and places authorized to be searched, including all the cars on the lot, and items for which the search was to be conducted.

Compare Miller v. State, 155 Ga.App. 399 (I)(A), 270 S.E.2d 822 (1980).

See also Miller v. State, 155 Ga. App. 399 ( 270 SE2d 822 ) (1980).

See Miller v. State, 155 Ga. App. 399, 401 (I) (B) ( 270 SE2d 822 ) (1980) (distinguishing Vaughn where the county of defendant’s residence was identified in the affidavit and was known to the magistrate).