where the affidavit contained no information whatever reflecting either the basis of the informant’s knowledge or the reasons why he should be believed
How later courts described this case
- where the affidavit contained no information whatever reflecting either the basis of the informant’s knowledge or the reasons why he should be believed
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Banke, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
The trial judge’s decision to grant the motion to suppress was based, in part, on the following finding of fact: “[The affiant’s] testimony is not credible in that he was unable to corroborate, in any manner, his testimony of when and where the surveillance took place and the number of individuals who were allegedly seen going to and from [the defendant’s residence].”
The trial judge sits as the ultimate trier of fact at a hearing on a motion to suppress, and his findings will not be disturbed if there is any evidence to support them. State v. Swift, 232 Ga. 535, 536 ( 207 SE2d 459 ) (1974). “Credibility of witnesses, resolution of any conflict or inconsistency, and weight to be accorded testimony [are] solely the province of the judge on a motion to suppress.” Rogers v. State, 155 Ga. App. 685, 686 ( 272 SE2d 549 ) (1980). Consequently, I agree that the grant of the motion to suppress should be affirmed.
I am authorized to state that Judge Carley joins in this special concurrence.