O.C.G.A. § 17-5-25 (2019)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Reason for ten-day limitation on executing warrants. - Ga. L. 1966, p. 567, § 6 (see O.C.G.A. § 17-5-25), in limiting the time to ten days from date of issuance in which search warrants may be executed, recognizes the importance of current information. Davis v. State, 127 Ga. App. 76, 192 S.E.2d 538 (1972). Photocopy equivalent to warrant. - Photocopy is an actual photograph of the document signed by the magistrate and the photocopy 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). Requirement that a copy of the warrant be presented to a resident. - Denial of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence had to be reversed; a new precedent held that if a search warrant failed to meet the particularity requirement of U.S. Const., amend. 14 on the warrant’s face but instead incorporates a supporting document by reference, failure to leave a copy of that supporting document at the searched premises invalidated the warrant, and 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 thus 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). Delay before leaving copy of warrant on premises. - Suppression of the fruits of a search warrant was not required when a copy of the warrant was not contemporaneously left on the premises where the warrant was executed because: (1) there was only a one- or two-day delay before a copy was left at the residence; (2) no personal property was seized; and (3) no resulting harm was specified. Brundige v. State, 310 Ga. App. 900, 714 S.E.2d 681 (2011), aff ’d, 291 Ga. 677, 735 S.E.2d 583 (2012). Technical violations of duplicate warrant requirement. - Fact that the copy of the search warrant received by the

defendant after the defendant provided a DNA sample was lacking the issuing judge’s signature as well as the date and time of the original warrant’s execution did not warrant suppression of the DNA evidence pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 17-5-31, as any violations of the failure to comply with the duplicate warrant requirement of O.C.G.A. § 17-5-25 were technical at best; further, the defendant made no showing of prejudice or that any substantial rights were affected by such omissions. State v. Stafford, 277 Ga. App. 852, 627 S.E.2d 802 (2006). Execution of warrant timely. - With regard to a defendant’s convictions for trafficking in methamphetamine and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute following a bench trial, the appellate court determined that no staleness issue existed with regard to the warrant issued to search the defendant’s apartment since the warrant was executed within ten days of the warrant’s issuance. Rocha v. State, 284 Ga. App. 852, 644 S.E.2d 921 (2007). When an arrestee sued police officers for executing an allegedly expired search warrant at the arrestee’s home, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and, thus, summary judgment dismissing the claim because while O.C.G.A. § 17-5-25 required a search warrant’s execution within ten days after the warrant’s issuance, it was unclear, as of the warrant’s execution, that O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1(d)(3), regarding time computation, did not extend that time period to make that execution timely since the tenth day after the warrant was issued fell on a Sunday, followed by a legal holiday, immediately after which the warrant was executed. Hurley v. City of St. Marys, No. 209-212, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7399 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 26, 2011). Subsequent test or analysis of seized item. - In a sexual exploitation of children case, a defendant’s computer was seized within ten days of the issuance of a warrant as required by O.C.G.A. § 17-5-25; there was no requirement that the analysis and examination of the computer take place within the ten-day pe-

riod. Mastrogiovanni v. State, 324 Ga. App. 739, 751 S.E.2d 536 (2013). Cited in Fowler v. State, 121 Ga. App. 22, 172 S.E.2d 447 (1970); Clyatt v. State, 126 Ga. App. 779, 192 S.E.2d 417 (1972); Wilson v. Hopper, 234 Ga. 859, 218 S.E.2d 573 (1975); Barrett v. State, 146 Ga. App. 207, 245 S.E.2d 890 (1978); State v. Hillman, 146 Ga. App. 418, 246 S.E.2d

434 (1978); Rivers v. State, 250 Ga. 288, 298 S.E.2d 10 (1982); Franklin v. State, 179 Ga. App. 220, 345 S.E.2d 912 (1986); State v. Banks, 185 Ga. App. 760, 365 S.E.2d 855 (1988); McLarty v. State, 238 Ga. App. 27, 516 S.E.2d 818 (1999); Brundige v. State, 291 Ga. 677, 735 S.E.2d 583 (2012); Brown v. State, 330 Ga. App. 488, 767 S.E.2d 299 (2014).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Information must be under 11 days old. - Information submitted to the judicial officer as probable cause for the issu-

ance of a search warrant should not be more than ten days old. 1969 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 69-172.

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 68 Am. Jur. 2d, Searches and Seizures, §§ 236, 237, 299 et seq. C.J.S. - 79 C.J.S., Searches and Seizures, §§ 182 et seq., 193 et seq., 231 et seq., 251 et seq.

ALR. - Preventing, obstructing, or delaying service or execution of search warrant as contempt, 39 A.L.R. 1354. Propriety of execution of no-knock search warrant, 59 A.L.R.6th 311.