Sams v. State, 172 S.E.2d 473 (Ga. Ct. App. 1970). · Go Syfert
Search
Sams v. State, 172 S.E.2d 473 (Ga. Ct. App. 1970). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
119 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Keller v. State (gactapp, 1982-04-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1970 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1970 1998 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Keller v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1982 · confidence medium
The tests to be applied in determining the sufficiency of an affidavit to show probable cause to issue a search warrant are: (1) that the affidavit gives reasons for the informer’s reliability, and (2) that the affidavit either states specifically how the informer obtained the information or the tip describes the criminal activity in such detail that the magistrate may know it is more than “a casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual’s general reputation.” Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410, 416 (89 SC 584, 21 LE2d 637); Aguilar v. …
cited Cited as authority (rule) Parker v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1982 · confidence medium
See Love v. State, supra, p. 735; Sams v. State, 121 Ga. App. 46, 48 ( 172 SE2d 473 ). 3.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1980 · confidence medium
Sams v. State, 121 Ga. App. 46, 48 (1) ( 172 SE2d 473 ); Smith v. State, 136 Ga. App. 17 , supra. There is no merit in this complaint.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Cooksey v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1979 · confidence medium
Sams v. State, 121 Ga. App. 46, 48 ( 172 SE2d 473 ) (1970).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1977 · confidence medium
The Aguilar-Spinelli tests of the informer’s tip are "(1) that the affidavit gives reasons for the informer’s reliability, and (2) that the affidavit either specifically states how the informer obtained the information or the tip describes the criminal activity in such detail that the *766 magistrate may know it is more than a 'casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual’s general reputation.’ ” Sams v. State, 121 Ga. App. 46, 48 ( 172 SE2d 473 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Black v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1976 · confidence medium
Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (89 SC 584, 21 LE2d 637); Sams v. State, 121 Ga. App. 46, 48 ( 172 SE2d 473 ); Johnson v. State, 111 Ga. App. 298 ( 141 SE2d 574 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cochran v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1975 · confidence medium
Even if this amounted to "merely the assertion of police suspicion,... [i]t adds weight to the tip so that a magistrate, looking at the whole of the evidence, can find probable cause.” Sams v. State, 121 Ga. App. 46, 48 ( 172 SE2d 473 ). 3. "[T]he affidavit and oral sworn testimony given to the magistrate who issued the search warrant failed to satisfy the basic requirement of probable cause in that there was no information from which the magistrate could have determined how or when the informer[s] obtained the information given the affiant.” Morrow v. State, 128 Ga. App. 461, 462 ( 196 SE…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moreland v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1974 · confidence medium
The affidavits fail (1) to give reasons for the informant’s reliability, and (2) to either state how the informer obtained the information or that the tip described the criminal activity in such detail that the magistrate may know it is more than a "casual rumor circulating in the underworld, or an accusation based merely on an individual’s general reputation.” See Grebe v. State, 125 Ga. App. 873 ( 189 SE2d 698 ), following and citing Sams v. State, 121 Ga. App. 46, 48 ( 172 SE2d 473 ); Johnson v. State, 111 Ga. App. 298 ( 141 SE2d 574 ) and Spinelli v. United States., 393 U. S. 410 (89…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bradley v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1974 · confidence medium
The affidavit and the affiants’ sworn testimony meet the requirements set out in Bell v. State, 128 Ga. App. 426, 427 ( 196 SE2d 894 ): "The general tests to be applied to determine the sufficiency of the affidavit’s facts and circumstances to show probable cause, are: (1) that the affidavit gives reasons for the informer’s reliability; (2) that the affidavit either specifically states how the informer obtained the information or the tip describes the criminal activity in such detail that the magistrate may know that it is more than a 'casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an acc…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Driscoll v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1973 · confidence medium
Such testimony was aimed at the absence of the word "illegal” in defining the drugs which informant had observed. l.To determine the sufficiency of probable cause for issuing a search warrant this court in Sams v. State, 121 Ga. App. 46, 48 ( 172 SE2d 473 ) stated: "[T]hese tests are: (1) that the affidavit gives reasons for the informer’s reliability, and (2) that the affidavit either specifically states how the informer obtained the information or the tip describes the criminal activity in such detail the magistrate may know it is more than a 'casual rumor circulating in the underworld o…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Currington v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1973 · confidence medium
He also cites Sams v. State, 121 Ga. App. 46, 47 ( 172 SE2d 473 ), which case refers to reliability in the past as to "gambling and lottery information” which might or might not have been on more than one occasion.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Morrow v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1973 · confidence medium
The factual situation here was similar to that in Grebe v. State, 125 Ga. App. 873 ( 189 SE2d 698 ) which was held insufficient to meet the tests laid down in the Federal cases discussed in Sams v. State, 121 Ga. App. 46, 48 ( 172 SE2d 473 ) and Johnson v. State, 111 Ga. App. 298 ( 141 SE2d 574 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bell v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1973 · confidence medium
Held: The general tests to be applied to determine the sufficiency of the affidavit’s facts and circumstances to show probable cause, are: (1) that the affidavit gives reasons for the informer’s reliability; (2) that the affidavit either specifically states how the informer obtained the information or the tip describes the criminal activity in such detail that the magistrate may know that it is more than a "casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual’s general reputation.” Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410, 416 (89 SC 584, 21 LE2d 63…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Buck v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1972 · confidence medium
This court held in Sams v. State, 121 Ga. App. 46, 48 ( 172 SE2d 473 ) that the tests of an informer’s tips required by Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (84 SC 1509, 12 LE2d 723) were not changed by Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (89 SC 584, 21 LE2d 637), but clarified by it: "[T]hese tests are: (1) that the affidavit gives reasons for the informer’s reliability, and (2) that the affidavit either specifically states how the informer obtained the information or the tip describes the criminal activity in such detail that the magistrate may know it is more than a 'casual rumor circul…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Grebe v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1972 · confidence medium
In Sams v. State, 121 Ga. App. 46, 48 ( 172 SE2d 473 ), and Johnson v. State, 111 Ga. App. 298 ( 141 SE2d 574 ), this court has discussed at length the meaning of the Federal cases binding us on search warrants.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thornton v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1972 · confidence medium
However, in Sams v. State, 121 Ga. App. 46, 48 ( 172 SE2d 473 ), this court held: "Standing alone, the sighting of known gamblers at the service station or the defendant’s previous arrests on lottery charges are merely the assertion of police suspicion, and, of course, insufficient for the issuance of a search warrant.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dresch v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1971 · confidence medium
Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (89 SC 584, 21 LE2d 637); Sams v. State, 121 Ga. App. 46, 48 ( 172 SE2d 473 ).
discussed Cited "see" Sawyer v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sams v. State, 121 Ga. App. 46, 48 (1) ( 172 SE2d 473 ) (1970).
discussed Cited "see" State v. McDonald (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sams v. State, 121 Ga. App. 46 ( 172 SE2d 473 ).
discussed Cited "see" Norwood v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sams v. State, 121 Ga. App. 46, 48 ( 172 SE2d 473 ).
discussed Cited "see" Holloway v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sams v. State, 121 Ga. App. 46 ( 172 SE2d 473 ); Dugan v. State, 130 Ga. App. 527 ( 203 SE2d 722 ); Jackson v. State, 129 Ga. App. 901 ( 201 SE2d 816 ); Adams v. State, 123 Ga. App. 206 ( 180 SE2d 262 ). 2.
discussed Cited "see" Jackson v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sams v. State, 121 Ga. App. 46 ( 172 SE2d 473 ).
examined Cited "see" Clyatt v. State (4×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sams v. State, 121 Ga. App. 46 ( 172 SE2d 473 ); Steele v. State, 118 Ga. App. 433 (3c) ( 164 SE2d 255 ); Thrall v. State, supra, p. 428; Johnston v. State, 227 Ga. 387, 389 ( 181 SE2d 42 ); Burns v. State, 119 Ga. App. 678, 683 ( 168 SE2d 786 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Crumley v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1975 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Sams v. State, 121 Ga. App. 46, 48 ( 172 SE2d 473 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Johnson v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1970 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Sams v. State, 121 Ga. App. 46 ( 172 SE2d 473 ). 2.
Sams
v.
the State
44683.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Jan 9, 1970.
172 S.E.2d 473
Robert Carpenter, LeRoy C. Hobbs, for appellant., Hinson McAuliffe, Solicitor, Thomas E. Moran, James L. Webb, Frank A. Bowers, for appellee.
Hall, Jordan, Whitman.
Cited by 59 opinions  |  Published
Hall, Judge.

1. Two of the enumerations of error are that the trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence and in subsequently admitting this evidence over objection at the trial. The evidence was obtained by a warrant which defendant claims was not supported by proper affidavit.

The text*of the affidavit reads as follows: “We have received information from an informer that has proven reliable in the past on gambling and lottery information who states that he has personal knowledge that Eddie O'. Sams is taking bets on ball games. The informant states that most of this betting is conducted from Eddie Sams’ home located in Cobb County on Old Tritt Rd. and that Eddie Sams pays off and collects monies for these bets at his service sta. on Ponce de Leon Av. on Monday mornings following the week end ball games. The informant states that Eddie Sams will have collection sheet on his person when he arrives at work on Mons. The informant also stated that some bets are handled at the ser. sta. itself and that people who gamble come and go from this location. This information has been received during the last month several times, the latest time being Dec. 17th, 1968. Subject Eddie Sams has previous arrests for this type violation and bets have been found before at this location and we have seen people known to us to be involved in betting on athletic contests at this location. For the above reasons I believe that Eddie 0. Sams is violating Sec. 26.6410 at the above location.”

Defendant relies on the recent case of Spinelli v. U. S., 393[*48] U. S. 410 (89 SC 584, 21 LE2d 637). Here again, as in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (84 SC 1509, 12 LE2d 723), the Supreme Court considered the sufficiency of the affidavit’s facts and circumstances to show probable cause. However, the court definitely states that it is clarifying Aguilar, not changing it. The Spinelli affidavit is found insufficient upon application of the Aguilar tests of an informer’s tip. As clarified by Spinelli, these tests are: (1) that the affidavit gives' reasons for the informer’s reliability, and (2) that the affidavit either specifically states how the informer obtained the information or the tip describes the criminal activity in such detail that the magistrate may know it is more than a “casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual’s general reputation.”

The Spinelli affidavit was only a bald statement that the F.B.I. “has been informed by a confidential reliable informant that Wm. Spinelli is operating a handbook and accepting wagers and disseminating wagering information by means of the telephone. . .” There is a vast difference between this and the affidavit in the present case. Here, reliability is shown by a past history in similar matters. See Marshall v. State, 113 Ga. App. 143 (147 SE2d 666); Steele v. State, 118 Ga. App. 433 (164 SE2d 255). Here also the criminal activity is detailed as to times and places.

Standing alone, the sighting of known gamblers at the service station or the defendant’s previous arrests on lottery charges are merely the assertion of police suspicion, and of course, insufficient for the issuance of a search warrant. On the other hand this information does not void the affidavit. It adds weight to the tip so that a magistrate, looking at the whole of the evidence, can find probable cause.

The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress or in admitting the evidence over defendant’s objection.

2. Defendant enumerates as error the refusal of the trial court to grant a mistrial because the assistant solicitor used the following language in his argument: “We speak of organized crime, and when you do get into three basic elements of evidence: narcotics, prostitution and gambling, generally one will[*49] tint the other. But this is the type of organized crime that has to be stopped. . .” In overruling the motion the court directed the solicitor not to go into general crime conditions. The defendant renewed his motion. We find no error. Terhune v. State, 117 Ga. App. 59 (159 SE2d 291); McKeever v. State, 118 Ga. App. 386 (163 SE2d 919); Frye v. State, 71 Ga. App. 795 (32 SE2d 410); Hunt v. State, 64 Ga. App. 324 (13 SE2d 121).

3. The evidence authorized a conviction. Hill v. State, 114 Ga. App. 527 (151 SE2d 818); Thomas v. State, 118 Ga. 774 (45 SE 622).

Judgment affirmed.

Jordan, P. J., and Whitman, J., concur.