State v. McKinney

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: January 8, 2003
• Docket: 2003-UP-024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State,        Respondent,

v.

James McKinney,        Appellant.

---

Appeal From Spartanburg County
J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-024
Submitted October 22, 2002 – Filed January 8, 2003

---

AFFIRMED

---

Chief Appellate Defender Daniel T. Stacey, of Columbia, for appellant.

Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson; Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for respondent.

---

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:  As to Issues I and II: State v. Bellamy, 336 S.C. 140, 144, 519 S.E.2d 347, 349 (1999) (holding this Court’s task is to decide whether “the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed”); Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39 (1983) (“[T]he duty of the reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.”); State v. Sullivan, 267 S.C. 610, 617, 230 S.E.2d 621, 624 (1976) (holding a reviewing court should accord deference to the magistrate’s determination of probable cause); State v. Bennett, 256 S.C. 234, 241 182 S.E.2d 291, 294 (1971) (holding doubtful or marginal cases should be resolved in favor of upholding the warrant); see Gates, 462 U.S. at 236 (holding the Fourth Amendment evidences a “strong preference for searches conducted pursuant to a warrant”); Bellamy, 336 S.C. at 143, 519 S.E.2d at 348 (holding a magistrate may issue a warrant only upon a finding of probable cause); Id. (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 238) (holding the determination of probable cause requires the magistrate 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”).

As to Issue II: State v. Dupree, 319 S.C. 454, 459, 462 S.E.2d 279, 282 (1995) (quoting Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 769-70 (1966)) (holding a search authorizing bodily intrusion requires “‘a clear indication that in fact evidence would be found’ in addition to probable cause”).

AFFIRMED. ^[1]

CONNOR, STILWELL, and HOWARD, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving any issue on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215 and 220(b)(2), SCACR.