State v. McKnight, No. 22651
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | NESS |
| Citation | 352 S.E.2d 471,291 S.C. 110 |
| Parties | The STATE, Appellant, v. Clifton McKNIGHT, Levan McKnight, Charles Montgomery, Jessie Doughty, Roscoe Pressley, and Edward Pressley, of whom Clifton McKnight, Levan McKnight, Charles Montgomery and Roscoe Pressley are Respondents. . Heard |
| Decision Date | 18 November 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 22651 |
Page 471
v.
Clifton McKNIGHT, Levan McKnight, Charles Montgomery, Jessie
Doughty, Roscoe Pressley, and Edward Pressley, of whom
Clifton McKnight, Levan McKnight, Charles Montgomery and
Roscoe Pressley are Respondents.
Decided Jan. 12, 1987.
Page 472
[291 S.C. 111] Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka, Columbia, and Sol. Wade S. Kolb, Jr., Sumter, for appellant.
Robert B. Nance, Columbia, for respondent Levan McKnight.
[291 S.C. 112] M. Duane Shuler, Kingstree, for respondent Clifton McKnight.
G.B. Jenkinson, Kingstree, for respondent Charles Montgomery.
W.E. Jenkinson, III, Kingstree, for respondent Roscoe Pressley and defendant Edward Pressley.
NESS, Chief Justice:
This is an appeal by the State from an order of the circuit court granting respondents' motion to suppress. 1 We affirm.
On the basis of information supplied by informants, Deputy Sheriff Russell Cox appeared before Magistrate Johnny Ard to obtain a search warrant of a mobile home in Williamsburg County. Cox related to Ard his belief that drugs and stolen goods would be found in the mobile home. Ard filled out a form for the search warrant and Cox signed it. Cox and Officer Wayne Lambert questioned Ard about the absence of an affidavit. Ard placed Cox under oath, and Cox orally recited the facts upon which the warrant was based. No affidavit was ever executed.
Upon a search of the mobile home, officers discovered numerous items of drug paraphernalia and substances believed to be cocaine and marijuana. Six persons were arrested. At a pretrial suppression hearing, the State contended the defendants lacked standing to challenge the warrant. The trial judge ruled that all defendants except Edward Pressley had standing to challenge the warrant. He granted the motion to suppress as to the other five defendants.
The Constitutions of the United States and the State of South Carolina require that search warrants be "supported by oath or affirmation." U.S. Const. Amend. IV; S.C. Const. Art. I, Section 10.
[291 S.C. 113] This is a minimum standard, and state legislatures are free to enact stricter requirements for the issuance of search warrants. See, State v. York, 250 S.C. 30, 156 S.E.2d 326 (1967). The South Carolina General Assembly has enacted a requirement that search warrants may be issued "only upon affidavit sworn to before the magistrate ... establishing the grounds for the warrant." S.C. Code Ann. Section 17-13-140 (1985). A search warrant that would survive constitutional scrutiny may still be defective under the statute.
The State argues the warrant was not defective, since it was supported by Cox's sworn oral testimony. An affidavit is a voluntary ex parte statement reduced to writing and sworn to or affirmed before some person legally authorized to administer an oath or affirmation. 3 Am.Jur.2d, Affidavits, Section 1. It differs from an oath in that an affidavit consists of a statement of fact which is sworn to as the truth, while an oath is a pledge. Id. Section 2; 58 Am.Jur.2d, Oath and Affirmation, Section 3. While a sworn, oral statement may be sufficient to satisfy the constitutional requirement for oath or affirmation, it does not satisfy the statutory requirement of an affidavit.
A search warrant affidavit which itself is insufficient to establish probable cause may be supplemented before the magistrate by sworn oral testimony. State v. Sachs, 264 S.C. 541, 216 S.E.2d 501
Page 473
(1975). See also, State v. White, 275 S.C. 500, 272 S.E.2d 800 (1980). However, sworn oral testimony, standing alone, does not satisfy the statute. The mandate of the statute is clear. The Court cannot, under the guise of statutory interpretation, overlook plain meaning of the statute to imply...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Robinson, No. 27463.
...the place searched. Carter, 525 U.S. at 88, 119 S.Ct. 469 (quoting Rakas, 439 U.S. at 143–44 & n. 12, 99 S.Ct. 421 ); State v. McKnight, 291 S.C. 110, 115, 352 S.E.2d 471, 473 (1987) ; see also Rakas, 439 U.S. at 136–39, 99 S.Ct. 421 (rejecting the “target theory,” in which anyone who was t......
-
State v. Angel, No. 15-1830
...warrant."); Cook, 498 N.W.2d at 21–22 (stating that Minnesota allows evidence of sworn but unrecorded oral testimony); State v. McKnight, 291 S.C. 110, 352 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1987) ("A search warrant affidavit which itself is insufficient to establish probable cause may be supplemented before......
-
State v. Guzman, No. 17716
...630 (1985); see also Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363, 476 N.E.2d 548 (1985) (rejecting rule on statutory grounds); State v. McKnight, 291 S.C. 110, 352 S.E.2d 471 (1987) (same). Additionally, some state courts of appeal have rejected the good faith exception under their respective stat......
-
State v. Bowie, No. 3835.
...warrant insufficient in itself to establish probable cause. State v. Johnson, 302 S.C. 243, 395 S.E.2d 167 (1990); State v. McKnight, 291 S.C. 110, 352 S.E.2d 471 (1987); State v. Martin, 347 S.C. 522, 556 S.E.2d 706 (Ct.App.2001); see also State v. Jones, 342 S.C. 121, 128, 536 S.E.2d 675,......
-
State v. Robinson, No. 27463.
...the place searched. Carter, 525 U.S. at 88, 119 S.Ct. 469 (quoting Rakas, 439 U.S. at 143–44 & n. 12, 99 S.Ct. 421 ); State v. McKnight, 291 S.C. 110, 115, 352 S.E.2d 471, 473 (1987) ; see also Rakas, 439 U.S. at 136–39, 99 S.Ct. 421 (rejecting the “target theory,” in which anyone who was t......
-
State v. Angel, No. 15-1830
...warrant."); Cook, 498 N.W.2d at 21–22 (stating that Minnesota allows evidence of sworn but unrecorded oral testimony); State v. McKnight, 291 S.C. 110, 352 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1987) ("A search warrant affidavit which itself is insufficient to establish probable cause may be supplemented before......
-
State v. Guzman, No. 17716
...630 (1985); see also Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363, 476 N.E.2d 548 (1985) (rejecting rule on statutory grounds); State v. McKnight, 291 S.C. 110, 352 S.E.2d 471 (1987) (same). Additionally, some state courts of appeal have rejected the good faith exception under their respective stat......
-
State v. Bowie, No. 3835.
...warrant insufficient in itself to establish probable cause. State v. Johnson, 302 S.C. 243, 395 S.E.2d 167 (1990); State v. McKnight, 291 S.C. 110, 352 S.E.2d 471 (1987); State v. Martin, 347 S.C. 522, 556 S.E.2d 706 (Ct.App.2001); see also State v. Jones, 342 S.C. 121, 128, 536 S.E.2d 675,......