State v. Britton

Manvel Britton was charged with murder in the fatal shooting of Eddy Leonardo outside a Roswell supermarket. Police traced a car seen at the scene to Britton's co-defendant, James English, and phone records showed English's and Britton's phones communicating around the time of the shooting. A magistrate judge issued a warrant for Britton's cell phone records based on an affidavit describing that communication as 'extensive.' Britton later argued the affidavit falsely described the calls (which included several missed and very short calls) and that it was unclear which detective actually swore to the affidavit, so a Fulton County trial court suppressed the cell phone evidence. The Supreme Court of Georgia disagreed on both points. It found the description of the calls was a subjective characterization, not a provable falsehood, and that the affidavit's mix of two detectives' statements did not make it invalid because one detective clearly swore to all of it under oath. The court reversed the suppression order.

The court held that the affidavit's description of the calls as 'extensive communication' was a subjective characterization that could not be proven false on this record, and that the affidavit was valid on its face because one detective swore under oath to all the information in it, including hearsay from another officer; the magistrate therefore had a substantial basis to find probable cause.

The ruling lets prosecutors use Britton's cell phone location records at trial and reaffirms that Georgia courts must give search warrants strong deference. It also clarifies that affidavits combining information from multiple officers, and using subjective language like 'extensive communication,' can still support a valid warrant.

Reversed

1. The court explained that under Franks v. Delaware, a warrant affidavit's statement can only be excluded from a probable cause analysis if the defendant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the statement was an intentional, knowing, or reckless falsehood.
2. Reviewing the phone records themselves, the court found that 'extensive communication' is a subjective description of an unspecified range of contact, not an objectively falsifiable claim, so the trial court erred in treating it as a proven misrepresentation.
3. Looking at the full 31-hour period surrounding the shooting rather than just the day of the crime, the court counted 27 calls between the two phones, including 44 minutes of calls before the shooting, supporting that the description was not false.
4. Applying the substantial-deference standard that requires courts to give weight to a magistrate's probable cause finding, the court concluded the totality of the affidavit, including car tracking evidence, phone records, and fingerprint evidence, gave the magistrate a substantial basis to issue the warrant.
5. On the second issue, the court found that although the affidavit awkwardly combined statements attributed to two different detectives, the document was still valid because one detective swore under oath to the truth of everything in it, and search warrant affidavits may properly rely on hearsay from fellow investigating officers.

• search warrant
• motion to suppress
• cell phone records
• murder case
• probable cause