Constitutional standards for acceptable warrant directed to all police.

- Even though the execution of a warrant is directed to all peace officers, a search pursuant to the warrant meets the requirements of the United States and Georgia Constitutions if the warrant was limited in the warrant's scope to physically described persons in a specific vicinity, and the description sufficiently permitted a prudent officer with a search warrant to be able to locate the person and place definitely and with reasonable certainty. Fomby v. State, 120 Ga. App. 387, 170 S.E.2d 585 (1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1008, 90 S. Ct. 1236, 25 L. Ed. 2d 421 (1970).

Warrant photocopy acceptable.

- Photocopy is an actual photograph of the document signed by the magistrate and it is entitled to an equal status of validity, constituting the "duplicate copy" required by the statute. DeFreeze v. State, 136 Ga. App. 10, 220 S.E.2d 17 (1975).

"Reserve deputies," aiding the sheriff in a search of land for contraband, who worked under the supervision and observation of the county deputies and were instructed not to handle any contraband discovered but rather only to alert the officers when the contraband was located, were within the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 17-5-24, which states that the search warrant "shall be directed for execution to all peace officers of this state." Bradford v. State, 184 Ga. App. 459, 361 S.E.2d 838 (1987).

Execution by dentist.

- Dental impressions, x-rays, and photographs produced in a search pursuant to a warrant did not have to be suppressed because the warrant was actually executed by a dentist since it would have been unreasonable to require that the actual physical gathering of the evidence, utilizing equipment and procedures requiring expert skill and having a high potential for harm to the person being searched, be done by peace officers. Harris v. State, 260 Ga. 860, 401 S.E.2d 263 (1991).

Requirement that a copy of the warrant be presented to a resident.

- Denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence had to be reversed; when a search warrant failed to meet the particularity requirement of U.S. Const., amend. XIV on the warrant's face but instead incorporates a supporting document by reference, the failure to leave a copy of that supporting document at the searched premises invalidated the warrant; thus, in the instant case, the warrant did not describe the place or the person to be searched and the agent who executed the warrant did not leave a copy of the supporting affidavit at the searched premises as required by O.C.G.A. §§ 17-5-24 and17-5-25, and, therefore, the warrant had to be suppressed pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 17-5-30(a)(2). Battle v. State, 275 Ga. App. 301, 620 S.E.2d 506 (2005).

Forensic computer analysis.

- No basis existed under O.C.G.A. § 17-5-24 for suppressing the results of forensic computer analysis because the analysis required expert skill, and without such expertise, it was conceivable that evidence could have been overlooked or even destroyed; the computer examination was conducted at the direction of Georgia peace officers to enable the officers to complete the officers' own investigation. Twiggs v. State, 315 Ga. App. 191, 726 S.E.2d 680 (2012).

Cited in Baxter v. State, 134 Ga. App. 286, 214 S.E.2d 578 (1975); Houser v. State, 234 Ga. 209, 214 S.E.2d 893 (1975); Barrett v. State, 146 Ga. App. 207, 245 S.E.2d 890 (1978); Davis v. State, 261 Ga. 382, 405 S.E.2d 648 (1991); State v. Rocco, 255 Ga. App. 565, 566 S.E.2d 365 (2002).

Campus police may search.

- Individuals who have been granted arrest powers on premises under the jurisdiction of the Board of Regents are authorized to conduct searches pursuant to Ga. L. 1966, p. 370, § 1 (see O.C.G.A. § 20-3-72). 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-172.

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 68 Am. Jur. 2d, Searches and Seizures, § 299 et seq.