Law disapproves of raising untimely technicalities in search warrant.

- Raising of technical irregularities in a search warrant is not favored by the law, especially when the defendant has not timely exercised the defendant's statutory right by a motion to suppress evidence allegedly illegally seized. Parker v. State, 118 Ga. App. 837, 166 S.E.2d 41 (1968).

Failure to swear to return before proper official.

- 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).

Failure to swear when affidavit signed.

- If the affiant was duly sworn, the failure to give a separate oath when the affidavit of probable cause was signed cannot be held to have undermined the warrant. State v. Penansky, 140 Ga. App. 405, 231 S.E.2d 152 (1976).

Omission of time of issuance.

- When officers have a warrant and serve the warrant when the officers arrive to make the search, an omission on the warrant of the time of issuance is a technical irregularity not affecting the substantial rights of the accused which would not require suppression of the evidence seized. Merritt v. State, 121 Ga. App. 832, 175 S.E.2d 890 (1970).

Typographical errors.

- Since the affidavit and warrant were all before the magistrate at the same time on the same date, the trial court correctly found that any errors as to the time the affidavit and warrant were signed were typographical and not so material as to destroy the integrity of the affidavit or the validity of the warrant. Carlton v. State, 251 Ga. App. 339, 554 S.E.2d 318 (2001).

Although a typographical error in the search warrant for the defendant's residence indicated the wrong street number of the home, when the defendant was named in the warrant and given the level of descriptive detail that matched the searched premises, as well as the officer's actions to verify that the defendant lived at the residence, the description of the premises to be searched was sufficiently exact to pass muster; accordingly, denial of suppression pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 17-5-31 was not error. Lester v. State, 278 Ga. App. 247, 628 S.E.2d 674 (2006).

Affidavit in support of the search warrant was not legally insufficient to establish probable cause when the affidavit identified another individual as the suspected shooter in one paragraph of a six-page affidavit because the investigating officer testified that it was a typographical error and the defendant was correctly named on the warrant and identified as the suspect throughout the majority of the affidavit. Carson v. State, 314 Ga. App. 515, 724 S.E.2d 821 (2012).

Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to file motions to suppress search warrants for the two recovered cell phones and the information obtained therefrom because, although the warrants erroneously stated the date of the murder as November 6, 2014 rather than November 6, 2013, mere typographical or clerical errors did not ordinarily provide a basis to suppress the evidence; and, even if the error in the warrants was deemed not to be purely typographical or clerical, and the extracted data outside the permissible scope of the warrants, the defendant did not claim, much less show, any specific resulting prejudice. Dent v. State, 303 Ga. 110, 810 S.E.2d 527 (2018).

Incorrect caption on search warrant.

- Alleged "irregularities" as to time of issuance of the warrant and the incorrect caption on the search warrant all fall within the category of a technical irregularity not affecting the substantial rights of the accused. Birge v. State, 143 Ga. App. 632, 239 S.E.2d 395 (1977).

Failure to put street address in clear warrant.

- When a search warrant clearly authorized the search of the premises described in the caption, the failure to reflect the street address or description in the body of the warrant is a technical irregularity which did not affect the substantial rights of the defendants and did not authorize suppression of the evidence. Latimer v. State, 134 Ga. App. 372, 214 S.E.2d 390 (1975).

Incorrect street address invalidated warrant.

- Search warrant containing the wrong street address was defective under both the federal and Georgia constitutions as the defect was not a mere technical irregularity under O.C.G.A. § 17-5-31 because it did not incorporate the affidavit and application and thus could not be construed with reference to them; furthermore, the warrant did not contain other descriptive elements that would allow an officer to locate the place with reasonable certainty. Thomas v. State, 287 Ga. App. 262, 651 S.E.2d 183 (2007).

Erroneous description of location technical irregularity because address and all other information correct.

- When a search warrant affidavit incorrectly described the house to be searched as the second house on the right, when it was actually the third house on the right, this error was a technical irregularity which did not invalidate the affidavit or the warrant based on the affidavit because the warrant contained the house's complete and correct address, city, physical description, and the fact that the house did not face the street named in the address. Marshall v. State, 273 Ga. App. 17, 614 S.E.2d 169 (2005).

Because defendant's house trailer had no house number, description of trailer sufficient.

- Trial court did not err in denying a defendant's motion to suppress evidence based on an allegedly insufficiently particular description of the property to be searched in the warrants. The warrants described the defendant's trailer home, which had no house number on the home, and the home's curtilage on the property where the home was located. Price v. State, 303 Ga. App. 859, 694 S.E.2d 712 (2010).

Inventory does not affect suspect's rights.

- Making and filing of an inventory following execution of a search warrant is merely a ministerial act not affecting the substantive rights of the accused. Manemann v. State, 147 Ga. App. 747, 250 S.E.2d 164 (1978).

Introduction of uncertified copy of search warrant.

- Introduction of an uncertified copy of the search warrant in lieu of the original established no basis for excluding contraband discovered pursuant to the warrant, since the officer upon whose application the warrant had been issued testified at the trial, and there was no contention that the copy was not an exact duplicate of the original. Cayce v. State, 192 Ga. App. 97, 383 S.E.2d 648 (1989).

Execution of warrant after warrant's issuance but before police have physical possession of the warrant.

- When (1) a search warrant, supported by probable cause, had properly issued before any search of the defendant's residence was conducted; (2) the police officers informed the resident of the premises of the existence of the warrant before the search; (3) the warrant arrived during the search and a copy was left with the resident at the conclusion of the search as required by O.C.G.A. § 17-5-25; and (4) there was no claim or indication that the officers exceeded the scope of the search authorized by the properly issued warrant, the trial court erred, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 17-5-31, in suppressing the warrant based on the officers' commencement of the search before having physical possession of the warrant because no substantial right of the defendant was affected by the execution of the warrant after the warrant's issuance but prior to the warrant's arrival at the scene. State v. Rocco, 255 Ga. App. 565, 566 S.E.2d 365 (2002).

One copy of warrant unsigned after magistrate finding.

- When one of three copies of a search warrant was not signed but at least one copy was signed at the time the warrant was issued, the warrant is not invalid if the magistrate made a judicial finding of the existence of probable cause prior to issuing the warrant. Braden v. State, 135 Ga. App. 827, 219 S.E.2d 479 (1975).

Officer's failure to sign return of things seized.

- 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 file affidavit or prove docket record of warrant.

- Search warrant is not inadmissible because the officers failed to file the affidavit with the issuing court after the warrant was executed or because there was no evidence indicating that a docket record of the warrant was made as these are technical irregularities not affecting the substantial rights of the accused. Sampson v. State, 165 Ga. App. 833, 303 S.E.2d 77 (1983).

Absence of attesting officer's signature fatal.

- In that the attesting officer's signature determines the validity of the affidavit and the search warrant, the signature's absence cannot be considered a mere technical irregularity. State v. Barnett, 136 Ga. App. 122, 220 S.E.2d 730 (1975).

Untimely return of warrant 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).

Magistrate's failure to determine probable cause.

- Failure on the part of the magistrate to make a judicial determination of the existence of probable cause, which is a sine qua non to the issuance of the warrant, is not a mere technical irregularity within the meaning of this section. Reid v. State, 129 Ga. App. 660, 200 S.E.2d 456 (1973).

Fact that a taped "affidavit" was not in written form when the affidavit was presented to the magistrate was a technical defect; accordingly, the court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Williams v. State, 188 Ga. App. 334, 373 S.E.2d 42 (1988).

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).

Lack of jurisdiction results in nullity.

- Whether to require or suppress evidence in a given situation is a responsibility of the judicial, not the legislative, branch of the government under the Constitution. Lack of jurisdiction to issue the warrant is not a mere technicality, but results in a nullity. Pruitt v. State, 123 Ga. App. 659, 182 S.E.2d 142 (1971).

Cited in Steele v. State, 118 Ga. App. 433, 164 S.E.2d 255 (1968); Houser v. State, 234 Ga. 209, 214 S.E.2d 893 (1975); State v. Blews, 148 Ga. App. 73, 251 S.E.2d 10 (1978); Rivers v. State, 250 Ga. 288, 298 S.E.2d 10 (1982); State v. Kirkland, 212 Ga. App. 672, 442 S.E.2d 491 (1994); Sprauve v. State, 229 Ga. App. 478, 494 S.E.2d 294 (1997).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 29 Am. Jur. 2d, Evidence, § 600.

ALR.

- Admissibility of evidence obtained by illegal search and seizure, 24 A.L.R. 1408; 32 A.L.R. 408; 41 A.L.R. 1145; 52 A.L.R. 477; 88 A.L.R. 348; 134 A.L.R. 819; 150 A.L.R. 566; 50 A.L.R.2d 531.

Right to enforce production of papers or documents by subpoena duces tecum or other process, as affected by unlawful means by which the knowledge of their existence was acquired, 24 A.L.R. 1429.

Modern status of rule governing admissibility of evidence obtained by unlawful search and seizure, 50 A.L.R.2d 531.

Propriety of execution of search warrant at nighttime, 26 A.L.R. 3d 951; 41 A.L.R.5th 171.