Legal Opinion

Carranza v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided February 19, 1996No. S95G1416PublishedCited by 40 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hunstein, Justice.

We granted Miguel Carranza’s application for writ of certiorari to consider whether under the facts in this case, law enforcement officers were required to obtain a warrant before entering Carranza’s home either to arrest him or to conduct a search. Because we find that in the absence of any exigent circumstances the officers were required to obtain a warrant, we reverse in part the Court of Appeals. State v. Carranza, 217 Ga. App. 431 (457 SE2d 699) (1995).

This case involves what is known as a “buy-bust” procedure. An undercover informant was sent by agents of the U. S.…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Illinois v. GatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Payton v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Beck v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  5. McDonald v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1948

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by40 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. TyreeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2010
  2. Fair v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2008
  3. Pickens v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1997
  4. Caffee v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2018
  5. Caffee v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2018

35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API