State v. Missouri
Decision Date | 06 December 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 25031.,25031. |
Parties | The STATE, Petitioner, v. Victor Wyatt MISSOURI, Respondent. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert M. Ariail of Greenville, for petitioner.
Chief Attorney Daniel T. Stacey, of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for respondent.
In this criminal case, this Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' unpublished opinion in State v. Missouri, 97-UP-448 (Ct.App.1997). We affirm.
During January and February 1995, Greenville detectives were investigating a crack cocaine ring with the help of a confidential informant. On February 3, 1995, the police obtained a search warrant to search the home of Laura and Curtis Sibert a/k/a "Hot Sauce" for cocaine. The lead detective, Eric Cureton, submitted an affidavit in support of the search warrant. The affidavit states, in part:
When the police executed the search warrant, officers found Missouri in the kitchen standing over a sink, facing a set of triple beam scales. Inside the sink was a quantity of cooked, crack cocaine. Missouri was arrested for trafficking in crack cocaine. At his trial, Missouri moved to suppress the evidence obtained in the search. Missouri argued the affidavit supporting the search warrant contained false information and further omitted critical, exculpatory information. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the omitted information was necessary for the magistrate's finding of probable cause. See State v. Missouri, 97-UP-448 (Ct.App. 1997). Judge Hearn dissented in a separate opinion. This Court granted certiorari to address the following issue: Did the Court of Appeals err in applying the test articulated by Franks v. Delaware1 for considering a challenge to the veracity of a search warrant affidavit?
The State argues that the Court of Appeals improperly applied the Franks test in deciding whether the magistrate had probable cause to issue the search warrant. We disagree.
At the suppression hearing, Officer Cureton testified that the following sentence in the warrant affidavit was in fact a false statement: "`Hot Sauce' told CSI that he had the crack but he would call him when it was right." Officer Cureton stated that Curtis Sibert a/k/a "Hot Sauce" never told his informant there was crack in Hot Sauce's apartment. Further on cross-examination, Officer Cureton testified that his informant had gone into Hot Sauce's house at about 3:00 p.m. on February 3, and the informant was told that Missouri had the "stuff," but it was not there. The informant then left the residence and returned at about 4:00 p.m. after Missouri had returned to the house. A "wire" had been placed on the informant's body to enable the police to listen to the conversations. After the informant left Hot Sauce's house, he approached Officer Cureton and told him, In addition, Hot Sauce had earlier told the informant that he did not want to cook the cocaine at his house because his wife was trying to go straight. This information was not provided to the magistrate in the supporting affidavit. The trial judge concluded that even with this information, the magistrate would have had a substantial basis upon which to find probable cause for issuing the warrant.
In Franks v. Delaware, the United States Supreme Court held that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments gave a defendant the right in certain circumstances to challenge the veracity of a warrant affidavit after the warrant had been issued and executed.2 To summarize, the Court provided the following two-part test:
Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72, 98 S.Ct. at 2684, 57 L.Ed.2d at 682.
Franks addressed an act of commission in which false information had been included in the warrant affidavit. However, the Franks test also applies to acts of omission in which exculpatory material is left out of the affidavit. See, e.g., United States v. Colkley, 899 F.2d 297 (4th Cir.1990)
; United States v. Vazquez, 605 F.2d 1269 (2d Cir.1979). To be entitled to a Franks hearing for an alleged omission, the challenger must make a preliminary showing that the information in question was omitted with the intent to make, or in reckless disregard of whether it made, the affidavit misleading to the issuing judge.3 There will be no Franks violation if the affidavit, including the omitted data, still contains sufficient information to establish probable cause. See Colkley, supra.
The instant case involves both an act of commission and an act of omission by Officer...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Ostrowski
......There will be no Franks violation if the affidavit, including the omitted data, still contains sufficient information to establish probable cause. 867 S.E.2d 278 State v. Missouri , 337 S.C. 548, 554, 524 S.E.2d 394, 397 (1999) (citation omitted) (footnote omitted). However, " Franks clearly requires defendants to allege more than ‘intentional’ omission in [a] weak sense.. To obtain a Franks hearing[,] the defendant must show that the omission is the product of a ......
-
State v. Ostrowski
...... judge. There will be no Franks violation if the. affidavit, including the omitted. . 10 . . data, still contains sufficient information to establish. probable cause. . . State v. Missouri , 337 S.C. 548, 554, 524 S.E.2d. 394, 397 (1999) (citation omitted) (footnote omitted). However, " Franks clearly requires defendants to. allege more than 'intentional' omission in [a] weak. sense.. To obtain a Franks hearing[, ] the. defendant must show that the ......
-
State v. Ostrowski
...if the affidavit, including the omitted 9 data, still contains sufficient information to establish probable cause. State v. Missouri, 337 S.C. 548, 554, 524 S.E.2d 394, 397 (1999) (citation omitted) (footnote omitted). However, "Franks clearly requires defendants to allege more than 'intent......
-
State v. Bonilla
......Davis , 371 S.C. 412, 416, 639 S.E.2d 457, 459 (2006) ("There will be no Franks violation if the affidavit .. still contains sufficient information to establish probable cause." (quoting State v. Missouri , 337 S.C. 548, 554, 524 S.E.2d 394, 397 (1999) ). As discussed above, both vehicles were properly seized and transported to Dorchester County before the 429 S.C. 283 search warrants were issued. Thus, we agree that the search warrants were properly issued by the Dorchester County magistrate. ......