From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Smith

Supreme Court of South Carolina
May 29, 1990
301 S.C. 371 (S.C. 1990)

Summary

finding mere conclusory statements which give a magistrate no basis to make a judgment regarding probable cause are insufficient as the magistrate's actions "cannot be a mere ratification of the bare conclusions of others" (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 239 (1983))

Summary of this case from State v. Miller

Opinion

23218

Heard April 3, 1990.

Decided May 29, 1990.

Asst. Appellate Defender Daniel T. Stacey, of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant. Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock and Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Columbia, and Sol. Charles M. Condon, Charleston, for respondent.


Heard April 3, 1990.

Decided May 29, 1990.


Appellant Reginald Smith was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to twenty-one years imprisonment.

We remand.

FACTS/DISCUSSION

Smith was indicted for the armed robbery of a Master Host Inn in Charleston, South Carolina. Prior to trial, Smith moved to suppress from evidence a knife, allegedly used in the robbery, which was seized from his motel room pursuant to a search warrant. The affidavit supporting the warrant states:

That on May 12th at approximately 11:45 p.m. Reginald Jerome Smith went into the Master Inn located at 1468 Savannah Hwy., Charleston, S.C. and he then robbed the manager at knife point. Smith has been staying at The Host of American Room 216 since Jan. 1, 1988 and there is every reason to believe the weapon and clothes used in the robbery will be located in the room. This information was confirmed in person by Sgt. Sherman on 05/13/88.

This affidavit is defective on its face. An affidavit must contain sufficient underlying facts and information upon which a magistrate may make a determination of probable cause. State v. Viard, 276 S.C. 147, 276 S.E.2d 531 (1981). Mere conclusory statements which give the magistrate no basis to make a judgment regarding probable cause are insufficient. "[H]is action cannot be a mere ratification of the bare conclusions of others." Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 239, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2333, 76 L.Ed.2d 527, 549 (1983).

Here, the affidavit sets forth no facts as to why police believed Smith robbed the Master Host Inn. Although the record reveals that police relied upon information from an informant, there is no indication that this fact was made known to the magistrate, or that the magistrate made any determination of the informant's reliability.

Accordingly, the case is remanded to the trial court for a hearing. If it be determined that sufficient oral testimony was presented to the Magistrate, the judgment is affirmed; if not, Smith is entitled to a new trial and suppression of the illegally obtained evidence.

See, State v. McKnight, 291 S.C. 110, 352 S.E.2d 471 (1987).

Smith's remaining exception is affirmed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23; State v. Lewis, 293 S.C. 107, 359 S.E.2d 66 (1987) (Exception II).

Remanded.

GREGORY, C.J., and HARWELL, FINNEY and TOAL, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Smith

Supreme Court of South Carolina
May 29, 1990
301 S.C. 371 (S.C. 1990)

finding mere conclusory statements which give a magistrate no basis to make a judgment regarding probable cause are insufficient as the magistrate's actions "cannot be a mere ratification of the bare conclusions of others" (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 239 (1983))

Summary of this case from State v. Miller

finding an affidavit defective on its face when it set forth no facts as to why police believed a defendant committed a robbery and omitted the fact that some of the information in the affidavit was provided by an informant

Summary of this case from State v. Moore

finding an affidavit defective because it “sets forth no facts as to why police believed Smith” committed the robbery

Summary of this case from State v. Jenkins

finding an affidavit defective because it "sets forth no facts as to why police believed Smith" committed the robbery

Summary of this case from State v. Jenkins

In State v. Smith, 301 S.C. 371, 392 S.E.2d 182 (1990), Smith moved to suppress a knife, allegedly used in a robbery, which was seized from his motel room pursuant to a search warrant.

Summary of this case from State v. Baccus
Case details for

State v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:The STATE, Respondent v. Reginald J. SMITH, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: May 29, 1990

Citations

301 S.C. 371 (S.C. 1990)
392 S.E.2d 182

Citing Cases

State v. Jenkins

First, the affidavit must set forth facts as to why the police believe the suspect whose DNA is sought is the…

State v. Jenkins

First, the affidavit must set forth facts as to why the police believe the suspect whose DNA is sought is the…