Snyder, In re, No. 23638

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation417 S.E.2d 572,308 S.C. 192
PartiesIn re Investigation of Death of Melinda Renee SNYDER. STATE of South Carolina, Appellant, v. John DOE and Jim Doe, Respondents. . Heard
Docket NumberNo. 23638
Decision Date11 June 1991

Page 572

417 S.E.2d 572
308 S.C. 192
In re Investigation of Death of Melinda Renee SNYDER.
STATE of South Carolina, Appellant,
v.
John DOE and Jim Doe, Respondents.
No. 23638.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard June 11, 1991.
Decided April 13, 1992.

Page 573

[308 S.C. 193] 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.

PER CURIAM:

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 [308 S.C. 194] 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • State v. Simmons, No. 4569.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 17, 2009
    ...South Carolina Code (2003) provides for the involuntary submission of nontestimonial identification 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 evidence ......
  • State v. Jenkins, No. 4958.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 20, 2012
    ...will be found; 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 t......
  • State v. Baccus, No. 26094.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 9, 2006
    ...a person's 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 a......
  • State v. Thompson, No. 3937.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • January 31, 2005
    ...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 In In re Snyder, our supreme court held that South Carolina Code section 17-13-140 (search warrant statute) provides......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • State v. Simmons, No. 4569.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 17, 2009
    ...South Carolina Code (2003) provides for the involuntary submission of nontestimonial identification 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 evidence ......
  • State v. Jenkins, No. 4958.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 20, 2012
    ...will be found; 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 t......
  • State v. Baccus, No. 26094.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 9, 2006
    ...a person's 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 a......
  • State v. Thompson, No. 3937.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • January 31, 2005
    ...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 In In re Snyder, our supreme court held that South Carolina Code section 17-13-140 (search warrant statute) provides......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT