Snyder, In re, 23638
| Decision Date | 11 June 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 23638,23638 |
| Citation | 417 S.E.2d 572,308 S.C. 192 |
| Parties | In re Investigation of Death of Melinda Renee SNYDER. STATE of South Carolina, Appellant, v. John DOE and Jim Doe, Respondents. . Heard |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Amie L. Clifford, Columbia, and Sol. Larry F. Grant, York, for appellant.
Leland B. Greeley, Rock Hill, for respondent John Doe.
Thomas A. McKinney, of McKinney, Givens & Miller, Rock Hill, for respondent Jim Doe.
The State of South Carolina appeals a circuit judge's denial of its motion for an order permitting the taking of nontestimonial evidence from Respondents John Doe and Jim Doe, unarrested suspects in a homicide investigation. The circuit court denied appellant's motion based upon its finding that there is no procedure under South Carolina law that would allow the State to obtain such evidence when there is not sufficient probable cause to arrest the suspects. We reverse.
This case arose out of the death of Melinda Renee Snyder, who died as the result of being shot on January 23, 1990. An autopsy showed no signs of other physical assault or sexual attack. Subsequently, the assistance of the State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) was requested in the investigation. Some weeks later, SLED revealed that its analysis showed signs of semen but did not reveal any spermatozoa in the victim's body.
The investigation focused on the respondents. Jim Doe's sister shared a residence with the victim. His sister called Jim Doe's home to report the shooting and he, with his mother, went to the victim's home on the night of the shooting. Jim Doe had visited his sister at the residence on at least two occasions prior to the incident.
The State issued notice dated March 6, 1990 of its Motion for a court order allowing it, forcibly if necessary, to remove samples of blood and saliva, along with head and pubic hair, to be analyzed in connection with the investigation. Additionally, the State sought "major cause" palm and fingerprints from Jim Doe. The circuit judge issued a Rule To Show Cause dated and served March 6, 1990, for a hearing on March 9, 1990. On March 9, 1990, no hearing was held, but the circuit judge met with the State's and respondents' counsel and requested counsel for all parties to file briefs, which were subsequently submitted.
On May 22, 1990, counsel for the State informed the circuit judge and respondent's counsel of additional research conducted by his office and submitted the results for consideration by the judge. On June 6, 1990, the judge requested counsel for all parties to rebrief the issue by June 29, 1990. After receiving the briefs and without ever holding a hearing to determine probable cause, on July 2, 1990, the court issued its order denying the State's motion. In its ruling, the circuit court noted that the intrusion necessary for obtaining the requested samples would require narrowly defined guidelines and procedures.
On appeal, the State contends the procedure for requiring unarrested suspects to produce nontestimonial evidence is covered under the South Carolina Search Warrant Statute, S.C.Code Ann. § 17-13-140 (1985).
Respondents assert that the word "property" as used in Section 17-13-140, does not include nontestimonial evidence. We disagree.
Section 17-13-140 covers "the issuance, execution and return of search warrants for property connected with the commission of crime ..." Subsection (4) provides for the issuance of a search warrant for "property constituting evidence of crime or tending to show that a particular person committed a criminal offense." Under this court's construction, "property" as used in Section 17-13-140, encompasses nontestimonial identification evidence.
Respondent's next assert that Section 17-13-140 contains no guidelines and procedures for obtaining nontestimonial identification evidence. However, guidelines and procedures for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Simmons, 4569.
... ... 682 S.E.2d 35 ... evidence. In re Snyder, 308 S.C. 192, 196, 417 S.E.2d 572, 574 (1992); Register, 308 S.C. at 537, 419 S.E.2d at 772. When the State seeks nontestimonial identification ... ...
-
State v. Jenkins
...and (3) the method used to secure it is safe and reliable. 367 S.C. at 53–54, 625 S.E.2d at 223 (quoting In re Snyder, 308 S.C. 192, 195, 417 S.E.2d 572, 574 (1992) (per curiam)); see alsoS.C.Code Ann. § 17–13–140 (2003). The magistrate must also consider the seriousness of the crime and th......
-
State v. Baccus
...body must comply with constitutional and statutory guidelines. Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 769-70, 86 S.Ct. at 1835; In re Snyder, 308 S.C. 192, 417 S.E.2d 572, (1992); Register, 308 S.C. at 537, 419 S.E.2d at 772. In Snyder, we Section 17-13-140 covers "the issuance, execution and return of sea......
-
State v. Thompson
... ... the warrant invalid because the warrant did not set forth specific findings required to justify a bodily intrusion as required under In re Snyder, 308 S.C. 192, 417 S.E.2d 572 (1992) ... We disagree ... In In re Snyder, our supreme court held that South Carolina Code section ... ...