Court Cases Court Cases
AL  AK  AZ  AR  CA  CO  CT  DE  FL  GA  HI  ID  IL  IN  IA  KS  KY  LA  ME  MD  MA  MI  MN  MS  MO  MT  NE  NV 
NH  NJ  NM  NY  NC  ND  OH  OK  OR  PA  RI  SC  SD  TN  TX  UT  VT  VA  WA  WV  WI  WY  EO  NR  PR  DC  US 
 
View Case Details
 
HOWARD
vs.
THE STATE
 
Case:
No. 66826
 
Location:
Court of Appeals of Georgia
 
Date:
September 23, 1983, Decided
 
Attorneys:
Kenneth L. Gordon for appellant.
Frank C. Winn District Counsel Jeffrey P. Richards Assistant District Counsel for appellee.
 
Court:
Quillian, Presiding Judge. Sognier and Pope JJ. concur.
 
Author:
The Hon. Justice Quillian
 

The defendant appeals the revocation of his probated sentence. Held:

The defendant contends the evidence utilized to revoke his probation was the product of an unlawful search and seizure.

We recognize the general rule that "illegally seized evidence may not be used to revoke probation." Stanley v. State 153 Ga. App. 42 (264 SE2d 533). Nevertheless in the case sub judice the defendant a probationer was required to reside in the Cobb Diversion Center a restitution shelter and as a part of the program agreed to abide by the rules and regulations of the Center. He returned to the Center in an apparently intoxicated condition according to evidence produced by the State. He was taken to the hospital for a blood test and urine sample; meanwhile his vehicle located on the property of the Center was searched and certain controlled substances were found therein.

The rules and regulations of the Center provided: "Any resident returning to the Center under the influence of drugs or alcohol will be disciplined appropriately. Breath tests for alcohol and chemical tests for drugs will be used regularly. . . . The staff has the right to inspect and search any resident his property or his room. Periodic shakedowns may be expected. You are responsible for any contraband that may be found in any vehicle you own or bring on the Center property (including visitor's vehicles)."

1. We find that defendant's contentions regarding the inadmissibility of the results of the tests performed by extracting his bodily fluids is controlled adversely to such position by Smith v. State 250 Ga. 438 439 (3) (298 SE2d 482).

2. Likewise there is no merit to the enumeration of error that the search of his vehicle was unlawful. "[A] probation revocation hearing is not a criminal trial and the same rules of procedure do not apply." Austin v. State 148 Ga. App. 784 785 (252 SE2d 696). "A defendant's status as a probationer . . . is a factor to be considered in determining whether a search and seizure by a probation officer is unreasonable. . . . The search by a probation officer is reasonable if under all the circumstances it is actuated by the legitimate operation of the probation supervision process and the probation officer acts reasonably in performing those duties." Hunter v. State 139 Ga. App. 676 678 (229 SE2d 505). Under the circumstances here the search was not unreasonable. Hunter v. State 139 Ga. App. 676 supra; Dean v. State 151 Ga. App. 847 849 (261 SE2d 759); Lillard v. State 156 Ga. App. 54 55 (274 SE2d 96). Judgment affirmed.