Inventory search permitted for custodial purposes, not investigative.

- To prevent escape, self-injury, or harm to others, the police have a legitimate interest in separating the accused from the property found in the accused's possession. An inventory is then necessary both to preserve the property of the accused while the accused is in jail and to forestall the possibility that the accused may later claim that some item has not been returned to the accused. However, the inventory must not be done with an investigative intent, but it should be incident to the caretaking function of the police. Gaston v. State, 155 Ga. App. 337, 270 S.E.2d 877 (1980).

Failure to give magistrate inventory copy not fatal.

- When the executing officers gave the defendant an inventory of the items seized, the officers' failure to deliver a similar inventory to the magistrate issuing the warrant as required by O.C.G.A. § 17-5-2 and a return thereof on the warrant as required by Ga. L. 1966, p. 567, § 10 (see O.C.G.A. § 17-5-29), and a delivery to the sheriff of the items seized, and a report to the commissioner of revenue are not cause for the suppression of the evidence. Holloway v. State, 134 Ga. App. 498, 215 S.E.2d 262 (1975).

Failure to swear return before proper officer not fatal.

- Absent a showing of prejudicial error to the defendant, the failure to swear to the return before an officer authorized to administer oaths is not such a fatal defect as to vitiate the search warrant. Waters v. State, 122 Ga. App. 808, 178 S.E.2d 770 (1970).

Officer's failure to sign "return of things seized" not fatal.

- Defect in the search warrant procedure wherein the officer executing the warrant failed to sign the "return of things seized" is not a fatal defect because of the absence of a showing of prejudicial error to the defendant. Vaughn v. State, 126 Ga. App. 252, 190 S.E.2d 609 (1972).

Failure to make return does not invalidate warrant.

- Assuming arguendo that a return was not made as required by O.C.G.A. § 17-5-29, the failure does not affect the validity of the search. Wallace v. State, 165 Ga. App. 804, 302 S.E.2d 718 (1983).

Untimely return not fatal when no showing of prejudice.

- Trial court properly refused to suppress blood and urine test records under O.C.G.A. § 17-5-31, although a written return of the warrant was not made in a timely fashion, as provided in O.C.G.A. § 17-5-29, because a defendant received a copy of the inventory of the medical records seized, and made no showing of prejudice as a result of the delayed filing. Stubblefield v. State, 302 Ga. App. 499, 690 S.E.2d 892 (2010).

Affidavit showing nothing on informer's reliability and source.

- Affidavit based on an informer's tip is fatally defective as the basis for a search warrant when the affidavit recites absolutely nothing which would show the informer's reliability nor states how the informer obtained the informer's information, and under Ga. L. 1966, p. 567, § 10 (see O.C.G.A. § 17-5-30) evidence obtained must be suppressed. Grebe v. State, 125 Ga. App. 873, 189 S.E.2d 698 (1972).

Cited in Lewis v. State, 126 Ga. App. 123, 190 S.E.2d 123 (1972); Beck v. State, 144 Ga. App. 361, 241 S.E.2d 305 (1977); Rivers v. State, 250 Ga. 288, 298 S.E.2d 10 (1982).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 68 Am. Jur. 2d, Searches and Seizures, §§ 236, 237.

ALR.

- Jurisdiction to quash search warrant and order return of property seized in liquor cases under federal statutes, 65 A.L.R. 1246.

Presence of liquor in vehicle at the time of search and seizure as condition of forfeiture for violating prohibition law, 71 A.L.R. 911.