Opinion ID: 1219381
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Search Warrant for Home

Text: Specifically, Johnson contends that the affidavit underlying the search warrant lacked probable cause because the informant's allegations were not corroborated and the reliability of the informant was not set forth. The United States Supreme Court adopted a totality of the circumstances test to assess informant information as the basis for a probable cause affidavit in Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed. (2d) 527 (1983). Under this test, [t]he task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common sense decision whether, 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. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a `substantial basis for ... conclud[ing] that probable cause existed.' Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. at 238-39, 103 S.Ct. at 2332. Although the affidavit states that the informant saw the evidence in Johnson's home within 72 hours of the issuance of the warrant, it does not set forth any information as to the reliability of the informant nor was the information corroborated. The officer who had obtained the warrant testified during the suppression hearing that he had worked with the informant on several other cases. It is not clear from the record, however, whether this information was given to the magistrate. Without any information concerning the reliability of the informant, `the inferences from the facts which lead to the complaint' will be drawn not `by a neutral and detached magistrate,' as the Constitution requires, but instead, by a police officer `engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime,' or, as in this case, by an unidentified information. (Citations omitted.) Aguilar v. Texas , 378 U.S. 108, 115, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 1514, 12 L.Ed. (2d) 723 (1964). Applying the totality of the circumstances test, it is the opinion of this Court that the affidavit by itself did not provide the magistrate with sufficient information concerning the informant's reliability upon which he could base a probable cause determination. The State argues that the search may be validated by the good faith exception adopted in United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed. (2d) 677 (1984). We disagree. In Leon , the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule does not bar the admission of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on as search warrant which was issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be invalid. The dispositive issue here is whether sufficient information was given to the magistrate to perform his neutral and detached function rather than serve as a rubber stamp for the police. Leon specifically precludes the application of the good faith exception in this situation. [R]eviewing courts will not defer to a warrant based on an affidavit that does not `provide the magistrate with a substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause.' `Sufficient information must be presented to the magistrate to allow that official to determine probable cause; his action cannot be a mere ratification of the bare conclusions of others.' (Citations omitted). Leon , 468 U.S. at 915, 104 S.Ct. at 3416, 82 L.Ed. (2d) at 693. We have already found that the affidavit alone does not include sufficient information to allow a magistrate to determine probable cause. Therefore, the good faith exception may not be employed to validate this warrant. This Court, however, has recognized that a warrant affidavit which is insufficient in itself to establish probable cause may be supplemented by sworn oral testimony State v. Crane , 296 S.C. 336, 372 S.E. (2d) 587 (1988); State v. McKnight , 291 S.C. 110, 352 S.E. (2d) 471 (1987). As noted above, it is not clear from this record whether oral testimony concerning the reliability of the informant was given to the magistrate. Therefore, we remand this issue to the trial court so that it may be determined exactly what information was supplied to the magistrate. State v. Smith , 392 S.E. (2d) 182 (S.C. 1990). If it is determined that the affidavit was in fact supplemented by sworn oral testimony before the magistrate regarding the informant's reliability thereby establishing probable cause, the validity of the warrant may be upheld. The admission of the evidence would therefore have been proper and the conviction would be affirmed. In contrast, if it is determined that the affidavit was not supplemented with testimony containing sufficient information to establish probable cause, Johnson will be entitled to a new trial and the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant must be suppressed.