FARMER v. STATE

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

26670.

Attorney(S)

Harrison, Martin, Childs Foster, Mobley F. Childs, John S. Harrison, for appellant. Richard Bell, District Attorney, for appellee.

Judges

UNDERCOFLER, Justice.

Acts

Crimes And Criminal Procedure — Wire And Electronic Communications Interception And Interception Of Oral Communications — Crimes — Definitions

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, Farmer, was convicted of bribery and sentenced to two years imprisonment by the DeKalb Superior Court. He appealed the conviction, raising several contentions including the denial of his motion to suppress wiretap evidence obtained without a superior court order, the denial of his motion to quash the indictment based on that evidence, and a constitutional challenge to Code Ann. § 26-3006.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress wiretap evidence obtained without a proper warrant.
Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to quash the indictment based on the allegedly illegally obtained wiretap evidence.
Whether Code Ann. § 26-3006 is unconstitutional.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The wiretap evidence was obtained without an order from the superior court and should have been suppressed.
The indictment should be quashed because it was based on illegally obtained wiretap evidence.
Code Ann. § 26-3006 is unconstitutional.

State's Arguments

The wiretap evidence is admissible even though obtained without proper warrants because the wiretap was not unlawful under the statutes.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347	Wiretapping constitutes a search and seizure protected under the Fourth Amendment; requires proper warrants.	Established that wiretap evidence obtained without proper warrants is an unlawful search and seizure, making such evidence inadmissible.
Cross v. State, 225 Ga. 760	Statutory provisions concerning wiretapping and the issuance of wiretap warrants; also procedural rule that court will not rule on constitutionality if valid grounds exist.	Referenced to affirm statutory framework for wiretaps and to support refusal to address constitutionality of Code Ann. § 26-3006 when other grounds suffice.
Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165	Further supports that evidence obtained by unlawful searches and seizures is inadmissible.	Supported the exclusion of wiretap evidence obtained without proper warrants.
Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208	Evidence received by the grand jury in finding a true bill is not subject to inquiry.	Used to uphold denial of motion to quash indictment despite challenge to underlying evidence.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court emphasized the protections of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures, including wiretapping as established in Katz v. United States. Although the wiretap in question may not have violated statutory prohibitions, the absence of a proper warrant rendered the evidence inadmissible under constitutional principles. The court declined to address the constitutionality of the statute since the case could be resolved on other grounds. Furthermore, the court held that the indictment could not be quashed based on the admissibility of evidence before the grand jury, as the evidence presented to the grand jury is not subject to challenge in such a motion.

Holding and Implications

Judgment reversed.

The court reversed the conviction due to the improper admission of wiretap evidence obtained without a proper warrant, reaffirming the constitutional requirement for warrants under the Fourth Amendment as interpreted in Katz. The decision directly affects the parties by excluding unlawfully obtained wiretap evidence and reversing the conviction, but it does not establish new precedent beyond the reaffirmation of existing constitutional protections.

Show full summary ...

FARMER v. THE STATE.

UNDERCOFLER, Justice.

The appellant was convicted of bribery and sentenced to two years imprisonment. Among other contentions in this appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred: (1) in denying his motion to suppress wiretap evidence which was obtained without an order of the superior court; (2) in denying his motion to quash the indictment because it was based on said illegally obtained wire-tap evidence; and (3) in not holding unconstitutional Code Ann. § 26-3006 (Ga. L. 1968, pp. 1249, 1333). Held:

1. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution ( Code § 1-804). Wire-tapping comes within this constitutional protection. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 ( 88 S.C. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576).

In addition both Congress and the Georgia General Assembly have adopted statutes which make wire-tapping unlawful. 18 USCA 2510 et seq.; Code Ann. § 26-3001 et seq. (Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249). The statutes are comprehensive and define certain certain circumstances under which wire-taps are not unlawful. They also provide for the issuance of wire-tap warrants by duly constituted authority. See Cross v. State, 225 Ga. 760 (2) ( 171 S.E.2d 507).

The State contends that the wire-tap evidence in this case is admissible in evidence even though obtained without the proper warrants because it was not unlawful. We do not agree. The wire-tap may not have been unlawful and not subject to prosecution under the statutes. However, that can not alter the mandate of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution as interpreted in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, supra, holding that a wire-tap is an unlawful search and seizure without the proper warrants. Accordingly, the wire-tap evidence in this case was inadmissible in evidence against the defendant. See Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 ( 89 S.C. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176).

2. This court will not pass upon the constitutionality of an Act of the General Assembly in any case where a proper basis for a valid judgment on some other ground exists. Cross v. State, 225 Ga. 760 (1), supra.

3. The trial court did not err in denying the motion to quash the indictment. The evidence which the grand jury receives in finding a true bill is not subject to inquiry. Williams v. State, 222 Ga. 208, 212 ( 149 S.E.2d 449).

Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur.

SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 16, 1971 — DECIDED OCTOBER 21, 1971.