State v. McKinney

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

James McKinney,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-024

Submitted October 22, 2002 – Filed January
8, 2003

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Daniel T. Stacey, of Columbia, for
appellant.

Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson;
Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant to Rule
220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:  As to Issues I and II: State
v. Bellamy, 336 S.C. 140, 144, 519 S.E.2d 347, 349 (1999) (holding this
Court’s task is to decide whether “the magistrate had a substantial basis for
concluding that probable cause existed”); Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S.
213, 238-39 (1983) (“[T]he duty of the reviewing court is simply to ensure that
the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.”);
State v. Sullivan, 267 S.C. 610, 617, 230 S.E.2d 621, 624 (1976) (holding
a reviewing court should accord deference to the magistrate’s determination
of probable cause); State v. Bennett, 256 S.C. 234, 241 182 S.E.2d 291,
294 (1971) (holding doubtful or marginal cases should be resolved in favor of
upholding the warrant); see Gates, 462 U.S. at 236 (holding the
Fourth Amendment evidences a “strong preference for searches conducted pursuant
to a warrant”); Bellamy, 336 S.C. at 143, 519 S.E.2d at 348 (holding
a magistrate may issue a warrant only upon a finding of probable cause); Id.
(quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 238) (holding the determination of probable
cause requires the magistrate to “make a practical, common-sense decision whether,
given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including
the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay information,
there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found
in a particular place”).

As to Issue II: State v. Dupree, 319 S.C. 454, 459,
462 S.E.2d 279, 282 (1995) (quoting Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S.
757, 769-70 (1966)) (holding a search authorizing bodily intrusion requires
“‘a clear indication that in fact evidence would be found’ in addition to probable
cause”).

AFFIRMED. [1]

CONNOR, STILWELL, and HOWARD, JJ., concur.

[1] Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving
any issue on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215 and 220(b)(2), SCACR.