O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 17-5-24 (2019)

Officers authorized to execute search warrants

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The search warrant shall be issued in duplicate and shall be directed for execution to all peace officers of this state. However, the judicial officer may direct the search warrant to be executed by any peace officer named specially therein.

History

Ga. L. 1966, p. 567, § 5.

Annotations

Law reviews. - For comment, ‘‘Seeking Warrants for Unknown Locations: The

Mismatch Between Digital Pegs and Territorial Holes,’’ see 68 Emory L.J. 185 (2018).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS 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 gather-

ing 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 and 17-5-25, 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).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 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.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1987–2014 · leading case: Twiggs v. State, 726 S.E.2d 680 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Twiggs v. State, 726 S.E.2d 680 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 14× “Twiggs and the victim’s mother eventually split up, and when, approximately three to four months later, the victim told her mother about these events, her mother contacted the police. 1. Twiggs asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial when his attorney…”
State v. Harber, 401 S.E.2d 57 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “I recognize that the university police officers who conducted the searches at issue were certified peace officers, as were the officers in Hill , and OCGA § 17-5-24 has been construed to authorize the execution of a search warrant by a certified peace officer outside his arrest…”
State v. Rocco, 566 S.E.2d 365 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “The Superior Court of Hall County granted the motion and suppressed the drugs, finding that the search was illegal because the officers did not have the warrant in their physical possession at the time the search began.”
Bradford v. State, 361 S.E.2d 838 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “They were instructed not to handle any contraband they discovered but rather only to alert the officers when it was located. Given the limitations placed upon the "reserve deputies" and the evidence presented that they complied with them, we find no violation of the provisions…”
Battle v. State, 620 S.E.2d 506 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× ““Whether it would be unreasonable to refuse a request to furnish the warrant at the outset of the search when, as in this case, an occupant of the premises is present and poses no threat to the officers’ safe and effective performance of their mission, is a question that this…”
Willingham v. State, 401 S.E.2d 63 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “I note that the university police officers who conducted the searches at issue were certified peace officers, and OCGA § 17-5-24 has been construed to authorize the execution of a search warrant by a certified peace officer outside his arrest jurisdiction.”
Harris v. State, 401 S.E.2d 263 (Ga. 1991). · cites it 2× “Appellant contends that the: dental impressions, x-rays and photographs produced in the search pursuant to those warrants should be suppressed because the warrants were actually executed by a dentist who was not a peace officer, thus violating the requirement in OCGA § 17-5-24…”
Davis v. State, 405 S.E.2d 648 (Ga. 1991). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 17-5-24 also provides that “[t]he search warrant.”
Bruce v. State, 359 S.E.2d 736 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 17-5-24 also provides that “[t]he search warrant.”
Brundige v. State, 714 S.E.2d 681 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 17-5-24 (A search warrant “shall be issued in duplicate.”
Johnson v. State, 766 S.E.2d 533 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 17-5-24.” State v. Rocco, 255 Ga. App.”
Hill v. State, 387 S.E.2d 582 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 17-5-21 (a) states that a search warrant may be issued based on probable cause established by “the written complaint of any officer of this state or its political subdivisions charged with the duty of enforcing the criminal laws.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.