-
625 S.E.2d 216 Supreme Court of South Carolina January 9, 2006 No. 26094
Appellant contends his arrest was illegal because officers arrested him without a warrant and without probable cause.
A search warrant may issue only upon a finding of probable cause. State v. Bellamy, 336 S.C. 140, 143 , 519 S.E.2d 347, 348 (1999).
Appellant argues a search warrant must also be issued, but in Snyder and Register we recognized a court order may be issued under § 17-13-140 instead of a search warrant.
-
736 S.E.2d 263 Supreme Court of South Carolina December 19, 2012 No. 27202
TV; see also Baccus, 367 S.C. at 50 , 625 S.E.2d at 221 (stating a search warrant may be issued only upon a finding of probable cause).
The Supreme Court declared the following new two-part rule: Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if[ 1] the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search
When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies. Id. (emphasis added).
-
587 S.E.2d 691 Supreme Court of South Carolina October 13, 2003 No. 25732
Based on the seizure of the cocaine and the information concerning the hotel room, Rainwater sought a warrant to search the room. Rainwater telephoned the magistrate and discussed the probable cause to issue the search warrant.
O’Quinn was sworn by the magistrate, 1 reviewed the warrant and signed the affidavit accompanying the search warrant.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial judge, finding the search warrant did not comply with the warrant statute.
-
763 S.E.2d 341 Supreme Court of South Carolina September 10, 2014 Nos. Appellate Case 2012-212779; 27445
Believing Petitioner Alfred Adams was a drug dealer, officers from the North Charleston South Carolina Police Department (NCPD), acting without a warrant, placed a Global Positioning System (GPS) 1 device on a vehicle driven by
The presence of our state statute requiring a warrant and the absence of any pre-Jones binding precedent in this federal circuit authorizing the placement of a GPS device without a warrant compel us to reject the proposed additional
Karo, 468 U.S. 705 , 104 S.Ct. 3296 , 82 L.Ed.2d 530 (1984)—constitute binding precedent that specifically authorized officers to install a tracking device on Adams’ car without a warrant. We disagree.
-
706 S.E.2d 324 Supreme Court of South Carolina February 22, 2011 No. 26931
Because the search warrant for the mobile home was obtained based on the evidence seized without a warrant, the court suppressed all of the State’s evidence, precluding further prosecution of the State’s case.
“A police officer without a warrant is privileged to enter private property to investigate a complaint or a report of an ongoing crime.” 24 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 2404 (2006); see also Clark v.
Respondent Coulette’s defense counsel admitted that the police may lawfully knock on the door after receiving a complaint.
-
625 S.E.2d 641 Supreme Court of South Carolina January 17, 2006 No. 26099
Did the court err in allowing testimony to the effect that Weston stated, “I need a lawyer” upon finding a search warrant the police had left inside his storage unit? 5.
McWee, 322 S.C. 387 , 472 S.E.2d 235 (1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1061 , 117 S.Ct. 695 , 136 L.Ed.2d 618 (1997) (error without prejudice does not warrant reversal); State v.
When they arrived at the storage unit, they found a search warrant. Weston read the search warrant and said, “I need a lawyer.” Weston asserts the trial court erred in allowing Perna to comment that he stated “I need a lawyer.”
-
260 S.E.2d 705 Supreme Court of South Carolina November 14, 1979 No. 21085
Their car was subsequently taken to the county jail yard and an inventory search conducted without benefit of warrant, a previous superficial search of the car having been made at the scene of the arrest.
A police office has probable cause to arrest without a warrant where he, “in good faith, believes that a person is guilty of a felony, and his belief rests on such grounds as would induce an ordinarily prudent and cautious man, under
Because the statute is unconstitutional, the argument continues, the arrest was made without probable cause, thereby making the search of the car illegal since it was a search incident to an arrest.
-
97 S.E. 62 Supreme Court of South Carolina October 8, 1918 No. 10093
would have been lawful, and that without a warrant to arrest or a warrant to seize.
It does not authorize a search of a man’s person or his house without a warrant.
By the common law (that law which due process guarantees) a citizen may be arrested without warrant who is discovered in the act of violating the law. City v. Payne, 2 Nott & McC. 475; State v. Sims, 16 S. C. 486.
-
736 S.E.2d 663 Supreme Court of South Carolina January 9, 2013 No. 27207
Sprinkle stepped out of the car and ran away as police attempted to initiate a pat-down search. Id. As officers pursued him, Sprinkle pulled out a handgun which was *111 later recovered by police. Id.
was not authorized by the search warrant.
However, the officer determined the item was contraband only after conducting a further search. The Supreme Court held that this further search was not authorized by Terry or by any other exception to the warrant requirement. Id.
-
494 S.E.2d 801 Supreme Court of South Carolina December 15, 1997 No. 24724
After towing the Datsun to the City Police Department, police obtained a search warrant from a ministerial recorder to search its contents.
Police stated in the search warrant that they were searching for property related to the Crumlin crime.
. § 17-13-140 (1985), a search warrant may be issued “only upon affidavit sworn to before the magistrate ... establishing the grounds for the warrant.”
-
754 S.E.2d 862 Supreme Court of South Carolina February 26, 2014 Nos. Appellate Case No. 2011-182548; No. 27357
Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement Generally, the Fourth Amendment requires the police to have a warrant in order to conduct a search. State v. Weaver, 374 S.C. 313, 319 , 649 S.E.2d 479, 482 (2007).
However, a warrantless search may nonetheless be proper under the Fourth Amendment if it falls within one of the well-established exceptions to the warrant requirement. State v.
Furthermore, if police officers are following their standard procedures, they may inventory impounded property without obtaining a warrant. See Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 372-73 , 107 S.Ct. 738 , 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987).
-
513 S.E.2d 606 Supreme Court of South Carolina February 22, 1999 No. 24906
Accordingly, we find no error. 9) Search warrant Appellant contends the search warrant issued on July 11, 1995, should have been quashed and the latex gloves seized *316 from his mobile home during the execution of this warrant
First, appellant contends the search warrant was obtained based upon stale information.
*317 Second, appellant contends the evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant was beyond the scope of the warrant. We disagree. The search warrant stated the police were looking for a gun.
-
528 S.E.2d 661 Supreme Court of South Carolina February 22, 2000 No. 25069
Prior to trial, defense counsel moved to suppress evidence seized by the officers without a search warrant. The trial judge conducted an in camera hearing on the motion.
On the other hand, if Defendant did have a legitimate expectation of privacy in his moped, the search would violate the Fourth Amendment because the police failed to secure a search warrant. See State v.
The police discovered and seized cocaine from the car.
-
692 S.E.2d 490 Supreme Court of South Carolina December 21, 2009 No. 26750
Initial Search Herring contends the initial peek by police into his garage (when his black SUV was seen), was an illegal search, which thereby led to the issuance of a search warrant.
Police knocked on the door and rang the doorbell several times; receiving no answer, they returned to the police station and obtained a search warrant for the home.
A search warrant may issue only upon a finding of probable cause. State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41 , 625 S.E.2d 216 (2006), cert. denied — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 733 , 172 L.Ed.2d 735 (2008).
-
620 S.E.2d 737 Supreme Court of South Carolina September 26, 2005 No. 26042
Trooper Meredith went on to testify that “we did a safety search before we put somebody in the car. You check them to see if they have any weapons.”
It would simply be unreasonable to expect a police officer, out on a deserted road at 11:00 p.m., to transport a suspect to the jail without first conducting a pat down search for weapons.
Locklair, 341 S.C. 352 , 535 S.E.2d 420 (2000) (error without prejudice does not warrant reversal). 5.
-
649 S.E.2d 479 Supreme Court of South Carolina July 30, 2007 No. 26366
The trial judge preliminarily ruled the seizure of the Jeep was proper without a warrant, that the search was lawful, and that the evidence was admissible.
If a vehicle is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment permits police to search the vehicle without more. Pennsylvania v.
State of California, 386 U.S. 58 , 87 S.Ct. 788 , 17 L.Ed.2d 730 (1967) (it is no answer to say the police could have obtained a search warrant, for the relevant test is not whether it is reasonable to procure a search warrant, but
-
149 S.E.2d 621 Supreme Court of South Carolina July 27, 1966 No. 18539
The officers subsequently, without a search warrant, removed the gun from the car. It was the opinion of one of the officers that the defendant was “heavily intoxicated” when he was arrested.
The pistol obtained by the officers in Augusta from defendant’s car without a search warrant was also admitted in evidence without objection.
It is contended that the gun should not have been admitted in evidence because it was obtained by the officers as a result of a search of defendant’s car without first having obtained a search warrant.
-
259 S.E.2d 120 Supreme Court of South Carolina October 11, 1979 No. 21066
The record shows appellant Jones and his brother hurriedly removed a suitcase from the car and then attempted to leave in the automobile after having notice police surveillance. The opportunity for search was fleeting.
In addition, the search began after the officers received word by radio that the search warrant had been, obtained and was en route.
We have held that it is not necessary to serve the owner of the premises with the search warrant prior to commencing the search. State v. Chandler, 267 S. C. 138, 226 S. E. (2d) 553 (1976).
-
395 S.E.2d 167 Supreme Court of South Carolina July 23, 1990 No. 23246
Because Johnson refused to consent to a search of his car, a second search warrant was procured for the automobile.
Therefore, the good faith exception may not be employed to validate this warrant.
Search Warrant for Automobile As noted above, Johnson claims that the evidence seized from his car should be suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
-
539 S.E.2d 414 Court of Appeals of South Carolina November 13, 2000 No. 3258
Lynch then transported Butler to the police station where a search uncovered 1.17 grams of cocaine hidden in Butler's sock. Butler was then arrested on charges of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
the meaning of this provision." [3] As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. [4] The police, however, may also stop
The expiration date was not visible, however, without pulling the car over to examine the sticker. [17] See State v.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.