State v. Arnold, No. 2350

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; SHAW and GOOLSBY, JJ. and HOWARD
Citation319 S.C. 256,460 S.E.2d 403
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Allen C. ARNOLD, Appellant. . Heard
Docket NumberNo. 2350
Decision Date07 March 1995

Page 403

460 S.E.2d 403
319 S.C. 256
The STATE, Respondent,
v.
Allen C. ARNOLD, Appellant.
No. 2350.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Heard March 7, 1995.
Decided May 30, 1995.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 22, 1995.
Certiorari Denied Feb. 8, 1996.

Page 404

[319 S.C. 257] Kathryne Ann Shelton, Columbia, for appellant.

Attorney Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Asst. Atty. Gen. Miller W. Shealy, Jr.; and Sol. Richard A. Harpootlian, Columbia, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Allen C. Arnold was convicted of second degree burglary, grand larceny and attempted safecracking. On appeal, he challenges the validity of two search warrants, and the trial court's failure to suppress all evidence deriving from the warrants. We affirm.

On May 1, 1992, Officer Rocky Senn submitted the following affidavit to the magistrate in support of the first search warrant issued in this case:

That on 4-17-92, during the early morning hours Kinko's Copies located at 7359 Two Notch was burglarized and the items sought were stolen. On 4-8-92, an employee of Kinko's was held responsible for a shortage of $200 in the business' cash register. This ex-employee is John G. Harris. On 4-15-92 during business hours around closing four subjects came into the business and caused damage to the ceiling and toilet in the public restroom. This damage was made in an attempt to gain entry to the adjacent office [319 S.C. 258] where a safe is kept and possibly to plan the subsequent burglary. An employee identified one of these subjects as "Mike" Arnold, a friend of John Harris. The employee also told investigators that these subjects were operating a white Pontiac Trans Am. On 4-17-92, at 2:07 A.M., Shoney's Manager at 7371 Two Notch reported a suspicious car and white male park in his lot and run through a wooded area. Deputies responded and identified the vehicle as a 1988 Pontiac Trans Am, white in color, S.C. Tag-YFS 120. The male subject was not located. The vehicle is registered to Lisa Baker of 1704 Morninglo. This address is the residence of Allen Arnold's parents. During the investigation the affiant learned that Lisa Baker and Allen C. Arnold share the apartment to be search[ed]. Additionally, the white Trans Am has been observed parked at the location to be searched. Due to the totality of the circumstances investigators believe the property is at the location to be searched.

Based on the above affidavit, the magistrate issued a search warrant for Apt. 715 Winsor Plantation Apartments. The warrant was executed the same day. The police officers found property owned by Kinko's in the apartment occupied by appellant.

As a direct result of the first search, other co-defendants of Appellant were identified and questioned. This led to the issuance of a second search warrant for appellant's apartment. Specifically, law enforcement officials were searching for two walkie-talkies and a torch allegedly used in the commission of the burglary at Kinko's. 1 The second warrant

Page 405

was issued on May 6, 1992, and the walkie-talkies and torch were found in appellant's apartment.

[319 S.C. 259] On appeal, appellant contends the evidence obtained from both search warrants should have been suppressed. He asserts (1) the trial judge erred in considering facts which were not present in the affidavit, (2) the trial judge erred in failing to suppress the evidence as to the first search warrant, as it was not supported by probable cause, and (3) the trial judge erred in failing to suppress evidence seized pursuant to the second search warrant, as the second search warrant was based on the information obtained as a result of the improperly issued warrant of May 1, 1992 and, thus, was the fruit of an illegal search.

We agree...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • State v. Dupree, No. 3657.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 30, 2003
    ...had a substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed. State v. King, 349 S.C. 142, 561 S.E.2d 640 (Ct.App.2002); State v. Arnold, 319 S.C. 256, 460 S.E.2d 403 (Ct.App.1995). This review, like the determination by the magistrate, is governed by the "totality of the circumstances" te......
  • State v. Bowie, No. 3835.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 28, 2004
    ...The term "probable cause" does not import absolute certainty. State v. Bennett, 256 S.C. 234, 182 S.E.2d 291 (1971); State v. Arnold, 319 S.C. 256, 460 S.E.2d 403 (Ct.App.1995). Instead, it "merely requires that the facts available to the officer would `warrant a man of reasonable caution i......
  • State v. Covert, No. 4071.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • January 17, 2006
    ...however, the trial court did not change its earlier ruling regarding the sufficiency of the search warrant. 4. See State v. Arnold, 319 S.C. 256, 460 S.E.2d 403 (Ct.App.1995) (holding Rule 220(c), SCACR, allows the court of appeals to affirm on any ground appearing in the record); see also ......
  • State v. King, No. 3467.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 25, 2002
    ...a search warrant should "decide whether the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed." State v. Arnold, 319 S.C. 256, 260, 460 S.E.2d 403, 405 (Ct.App.1995) (citation omitted). This review, like the determination by the magistrate, is governed by the "totalit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • State v. Dupree, No. 3657.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 30, 2003
    ...had a substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed. State v. King, 349 S.C. 142, 561 S.E.2d 640 (Ct.App.2002); State v. Arnold, 319 S.C. 256, 460 S.E.2d 403 (Ct.App.1995). This review, like the determination by the magistrate, is governed by the "totality of the circumstances" te......
  • State v. Bowie, No. 3835.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 28, 2004
    ...The term "probable cause" does not import absolute certainty. State v. Bennett, 256 S.C. 234, 182 S.E.2d 291 (1971); State v. Arnold, 319 S.C. 256, 460 S.E.2d 403 (Ct.App.1995). Instead, it "merely requires that the facts available to the officer would `warrant a man of reasonable caution i......
  • State v. Covert, No. 4071.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • January 17, 2006
    ...however, the trial court did not change its earlier ruling regarding the sufficiency of the search warrant. 4. See State v. Arnold, 319 S.C. 256, 460 S.E.2d 403 (Ct.App.1995) (holding Rule 220(c), SCACR, allows the court of appeals to affirm on any ground appearing in the record); see also ......
  • State v. King, No. 3467.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 25, 2002
    ...a search warrant should "decide whether the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed." State v. Arnold, 319 S.C. 256, 260, 460 S.E.2d 403, 405 (Ct.App.1995) (citation omitted). This review, like the determination by the magistrate, is governed by the "totalit......
  • 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