State v. York, 18684
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | BRAILSFORD; MOSS; LITTLEJOHN |
| Citation | 156 S.E.2d 326,250 S.C. 30 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Hattie YORK, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 18684,18684 |
| Decision Date | 31 July 1967 |
Page 326
v.
Hattie YORK, Appellant.
[250 S.C. 31]
Page 327
Finley & McKeown, York, for appellant.Sol. [250 S.C. 32] George F. Coleman, Winnsboro, Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Columbia, Asst. Atty. Gen. James B. Ellisor, Columbia, for respondent.
[250 S.C. 33] BRAILSFORD, Justice.
In January, 1965, the appellant, Hattie York, was convicted in the Court of General Sessions for York County of having violated Section 56--1313, Code of 1962, by unlawfully having certain drugs in her possession. The first ground of appeal is that the evidence against her (amphetamine tablets) was the product of an unlawful search of her premises, and should have been excluded. The issue turns upon the validity of a search warrant issued by a York County magistrate upon the sheriff's application and affidavit, as follows:
'Personally comes Grover Noe, who being duly sworn says he has good reason to believe that Hattie York * * * [250 S.C. 34] has concealed on her premises, * * * a quantity of liquor * * * and a quantity of 'Bennies' and/or other illegal drugs or narcotics; that affiants' source of information and ground of belief are based upon information received from C. Laney Talbert, Jr. and L. M. Kiser.'
As pointed out in State v. Hill, 245 S.C. 76, 138 S.E.2d 829, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and Article I, Section 16, of the Constitution of South Carolina, proscribe unreasonable searches and seizures in identical language, and prohibit the issuance of warrants except 'upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.'
The issuance of search warrants for contraband liquor upon affidavit, which may be upon information and belief, is authorized by Section 4--414, Code of 1962. If the affidavit is upon information and belief, Section 4--415, id., requires 'a statement setting forth the sources of information and The facts and grounds of belief Upon which the affiant based his belief.' (Emphasis added.) Section 17--271, id., provides that a search warrant for unlawful drugs 'shall be issued only upon affidavit * * * Establishing the grounds for the warrant.' (Emphasis added.)
The requirement of an affidavit as the basis of a search warrant is common to both statutes. Although their verbiage is not identical, in the light of the constitutional provision which they implement, both statutes must be construed to require that sufficient facts be stated in the affidavit to form the basis of a judgment by the issuing officer that probable cause exists. We quote from State v. Hill, supra:
'We think it elementary that the determination of whether or not there is probable cause must be made by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sachs, 20019
...the warrant is that Code § 17--271 requires that the warrant be issued only upon affidavit. While the Dicta in the case of State v. York, 250 S.C. 30, 156 S.E.2d 326 (1967) may be read as indicating that an exclusionary rule would be applied to evidence obtained pursuant to a statutorily de......
-
State v. Dunbar, 3866.
...800, 801 (1980) (holding that a search warrant issued upon affidavit or affirmation does not offend the Constitution); State v. York, 250 S.C. 30, 36-37, 156 S.E.2d 361 S.C. 248 326, 329 (1967) (noting that an affidavit complies with the minimum constitutional standards for the issuance of ......
-
State v. Dunbar, 3631.
...hearsay, may provide a legal basis for a search warrant. United States v. Welebir, 498 F.2d 346 (4th Cir.1974); see also State v. York, 250 S.C. 30, 156 S.E.2d 326 (1967) (affidavit for search warrant may be based on hearsay information); State v. Elkhill, 715 So.2d 327 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 19......
-
Swartz v. State, U--119
...P.2d 704 (1967); State v. Cadigan, 249 A.2d 750 (Me.1969); Commonwealth v. Monossen, 351 Mass. 327, 221 N.E.2d 220 (1966); State v. York, 250 S.C. 30, 156 S.W.2d 326 (1967); Smith v. State, 191 Md. 329, 62 A.2d 287 (1948); People v. Schnitzler, 18 N.Y.2d 457, 276 N.Y.S.2d 616, 223 N.E.2d 28......