{"id":1550,"date":"2008-01-25T16:19:06","date_gmt":"2007-11-24T09:19:29","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-11-24T09:19:29","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1550","title":{"rendered":"GA: Defense waived argument that no search warrant actually issued by not specifying the issue in the motion to suppress"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The motion to suppress did not adequately put the state on notice that the defendant was arguing that no search warrant actually issued. The officer presented an affidavit for a search warrant to the magistrate, but no search warrant. Based on the affidavit alone, the officers conducted the search. The issue first arose during the suppression hearing, and the state made an impromptu argument that the affidavit should suffice, but that did not cure the defense failure to put the state on notice. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.gasupreme.us\/pdf\/s07g0613.pdf\">Young v. State<\/a>, 282 Ga. 735, 653 S.E.2d 725 (2007):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Again, the question is whether Young&#8217;s motion to suppress sufficiently put the State on notice that the very existence of a search warrant was being challenged, i.e., that the document that Young himself referred to as the warrant was not in fact a warrant, and that this legal issue would be resolved at the motion to suppress hearing. And it is plain that the State was not on such notice. Examination of the transcript of the suppression hearing compels the conclusion that the State&#8217;s argument to the trial court was nothing more than an impromptu attempt to respond to Young&#8217;s unexpected challenge to the lack of an actual search warrant.<\/p>\n<p>. . .<\/p>\n<p>The Court of Appeals did not err in finding waiver under the circumstances of this case.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>2255 petitioner could not show that his counsel was ineffective for not arguing inapplicability of the good faith exception under <a href=\"http:\/\/caselaw.lp.findlaw.com\/scripts\/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=468&amp;invol=897\"><em>Leon<\/em><\/a> because it would have failed.  Seckman v. United States, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85798 (E.D. Okla. November 19, 2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1550\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1550","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1550","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1550"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1550\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1550"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1550"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1550"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}