BARNES, P. J., MCMILLIAN and REESE, JJ.
drug trafficking case, the State appeals the trial
court's grant of a motion to suppress all of the evidence
seized at a residence pursuant to two search
warrants.Because we find that the affidavits
underlying these warrants provided the magistrate with
sufficient information to support probable cause, we reverse
the trial court's order granting the motion to suppress.
OCGA § 17-5-21 (a), the issuance of a search warrant
must be based upon an affidavit "which states facts
sufficient to show probable cause that a crime is being
committed or has been committed[.]" This means that the
"search warrant must be supported by probable cause, or
reasonable grounds, to believe that evidence of a crime will
be found in a particular place." Hamlett v.
State, 323 Ga.App. 221, 228 (1) (b) (753 S.E.2d 118)
The magistrate's task in determining if probable cause
exists to issue a search warrant is simply to make a
practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the
circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him,
including the "veracity" and "basis of
knowledge" of persons supplying hearsay information,
there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a
crime will be found in a particular place.
State v. Palmer, 285 Ga. 75, 77 (673 S.E.2d 237)
(2009). "The test for probable cause is not a
hypertechnical one to be employed by legal technicians, but
is based on the factual and practical considerations of
everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men act."
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Glispie v.
State, 300 Ga. 128, 133 (2) (793 S.E.2d 381) (2016).
defendant may seek to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a
search warrant on the ground that there was no probable cause
for the issuance of the warrant. OCGA § 17-5-30 (a)
Where a motion to suppress asserts lack of probable cause,
the burden of showing that the search and seizure were lawful
shall be on the state. This burden upon the state is
satisfied by production of the warrant and its supporting
affidavit, and by showing either by those documents or by
other evidence that the warrant is not subject to the
statutory challenge alleged[.]
(Citation and emphasis submitted.) Smith v. State,
324 Ga.App. 542, 545 (1) (751 S.E.2d 164) (2013). Therefore,
"[t]he State must prove that the challenged search was
supported by a factually sufficient warrant." Glenn
v. State, 302 Ga. 276, 281 (III) (806 S.E.2d 564)
(2017). See also Hamlett, 323 Ga.App. at 232 (1) (b)
(when defendant asserts lack of probable cause, State must
show that probable cause existed).
[o]ur appellate courts will review the search warrant to
determine the existence of probable cause using the totality
of the circumstances analysis set forth in Illinois v.
Gates, 462 U.S. 213');">462 U.S. 213 [103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527]
(1983). The duty of the appellate courts is to determine if
the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that
probable cause existed to issue the search warrant. The
Fourth Amendment requires no more.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Palmer, 285 Ga.
at 78. And in a case such as this, where the facts
underlying the trial court's ruling on a motion to
suppress are undisputed, "the trial court's
application of the law to undisputed facts is subject to de
novo review, keeping in mind that a magistrate's decision
to issue a search warrant based on a finding of probable
cause is entitled to substantial deference by a reviewing
court." (Citations and punctuation omitted.)
Id. "Indeed, even doubtful cases should be
resolved in favor of upholding a magistrate's
determination that a warrant is proper." (Citation and
punctuation omitted.) Creamer v. State, 337 Ga.App.
394, 396 (788 S.E.2d 69) (2016).
because the magistrate only considered the evidence in the
warrant applications in issuing the search warrants, our
analysis is confined to the four corners of those documents.
See Coleman v. State, 337 Ga.App. 304, 306 (1) (787
S.E.2d 274) (2016). On October 20, 2016, a Lawrenceville
County Police Investigator (the "Investigator")
assigned to the Gwinnett Metro Task Force ("GMTF")
applied for Warrant No. 16X-01433 (the "First
Warrant") on the grounds that there was probable cause
to believe that the crime of trafficking in methamphetamine
(more than 28 grams, less than 200 grams) was being or had
been committed at an apartment in Duluth, Georgia. After
setting out his experience and qualifications, the
Investigator averred that a named Homeland Security
("HS") investigator had received information from a
confidential reliable informant that there were drugs and
guns at the apartment. In response to this information, HS
investigators set up surveillance of the apartment and
observed an automobile there matching the informant's
description of a car belonging to unnamed suspects. These
investigators observed Richard Pineda leave the apartment
carrying a bag and drive away in that car, which they
determined was registered to him, to another address in
Lawrenceville, Georgia. GMTF and HS investigators set up
surveillance at the Lawrenceville address and some time later
observed two suspects enter that location, stay a short time,
and then leave; each of these suspects was later stopped and
methamphetamine was located in their possession.
affidavit further provided that HS and GMTF investigators
served a search warrant at the Lawrenceville address,
where Pineda was the only individual inside, and
"located handguns, cellular telephones, [a] large amount
of suspected cocaine and [a] large amount of suspected
Methamphetamine, and U.S. Currency." A crime analyst
conducted a background search on Pineda and determined that
one of the addresses listed for him was the apartment in
Duluth. The Investigator averred that he sought the First
Warrant to search that apartment in order to find U.S.
currency, ledgers, and documents relating to the
transportation and distribution of illegal narcotics, cell