26 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hooper v. Rockwellgreen2 sentences2017The family court at the final hearing has the authority to redress any error from the temporary order."); id. at 457 , 734 S.E.2d at 648 ("If a party desires to challenge the family court's final resolution of the matter, the aggrieved party may appeal from final judgment."); Hooper v. Rockwell, 334 S.C. 281, 291 , 513 S.E.2d 358, 363 (1999) ("[A]n order issued as a result of a probable cause hearing in an emergency removal case is interlocutory in nature and not immediately appealable."); id. at 291 , 513 S.E.2d at 364 ("However, any order issued as a result of a merit hearing, as well as any 2017The family court at the final hearing has the authority to redress any error from the temporary order."); id. at 457 , 734 S.E.2d at 648 ("If a party desires to challenge the family court's final resolution of the matter, the aggrieved party may appeal from final judgment."); Hooper v. Rockwell, 334 S.C. 281, 291 , 513 S.E.2d 358, 363 (1999) ("[A]n order issued as a result of a probable cause hearing in an emergency removal case is interlocutory in nature and not immediately appealable."); id. at 291 , 513 S.E.2d at 364 ("However, any order issued as a result of a merit hearing, as well as any | 2 | 2 |
White v. Stategreen2 sentences2019The State's inability to provide mental health evidence does not prevent a finding of probable cause."); White v. State, 375 S.C. 1, 9-10 , 649 S.E.2d 172, 176-77 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding previous unadjudicated offenses are directly relevant to a determination of whether probable cause exists to believe someone is a sexually violent predator); Care & Treatment of Chandler v. State, 382 S.C. 250, 259 , 676 S.E.2d 676, 680 (2009) (reversing the circuit court's order that found no probable cause and concluding the defendant had "developed a pattern of engaging in inappropriate conduct" that conti 2019The State's inability to provide mental health evidence does not prevent a finding of probable cause."); White v. State, 375 S.C. 1, 9-10 , 649 S.E.2d 172, 176-77 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding previous unadjudicated offenses are directly relevant to a determination of whether probable cause exists to believe someone is a sexually violent predator); Care & Treatment of Chandler v. State, 382 S.C. 250, 259 , 676 S.E.2d 676, 680 (2009) (reversing the circuit court's order that found no probable cause and concluding the defendant had "developed a pattern of engaging in inappropriate conduct" that conti | 1 | 2 |
State v. Ramseygreen2 sentences2016Id. at 377-78 , 673 S.E.2d at 429 . 2016Id. at 377-78 , 673 S.E.2d at 429 . | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Grubbsgreen1 sentence2025See, e.g., United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 95 (2006) ("Because the probable-cause requirement looks to whether evidence will be found when the search is conducted, all warrants are, in a sense, 'anticipatory.' In the typical case where the police seek permission to search a house for an item they believe is already located there, the magistrate's determination that there is probable cause for the search amounts to a prediction that the item will still be there when the warrant is executed."). | 1 | 1 |
South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Pattengreen2 sentences2025Code Ann. § 43-35-45 (F); see also Patten, 412 S.C. at 100 , 770 S.E.2d at 196 (noting DSS's responsibility to ensure an adult "does not spend any more time in custody than absolutely necessary"). 2025Code Ann. § 43-35-45 (F); see also Patten, 412 S.C. at 100 , 770 S.E.2d at 196 (noting DSS's responsibility to ensure an adult "does not spend any more time in custody than absolutely necessary"). | 1 | 1 |
Maryland v. Pringlegreen2 sentences2022"The probable-cause standard is incapable of precise definition or quantification into percentages because it deals with probabilities and depends on the totality of the circumstances." Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371 (2003). 2022"To determine whether an officer had probable cause to arrest an individual, we examine the events leading up to the arrest, and then decide 'whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to' probable cause." Id. (quoting Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 (1996)). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Care & Treatment of Haygreen1 sentence2022Unlike the appellant in Ettel, Appellant in the present case did not admit to the unconvicted offenses.2 Further, in White, the State attempted to introduce the challenged evidence during a probable cause hearing before a judge rather than during a jury trial.3 Moreover, in the case on which the White court relied, Matter of Hay, 953 P.2d 666, 677 (Kan. 1998),4 the evidence of uncharged crimes consisted of victim testimony and other witness testimony.5 In contrast, the present case involves allegations in written police charges, incident reports, and victim and witness statements that were pre | 1 | 1 |
Ornelas v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2022"To determine whether an officer had probable cause to arrest an individual, we examine the events leading up to the arrest, and then decide 'whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to' probable cause." Id. (quoting Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 (1996)). | 1 | 1 |
Care and Treatment of Chandler v. Stategreen2 sentences2019The State's inability to provide mental health evidence does not prevent a finding of probable cause."); White v. State, 375 S.C. 1, 9-10 , 649 S.E.2d 172, 176-77 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding previous unadjudicated offenses are directly relevant to a determination of whether probable cause exists to believe someone is a sexually violent predator); Care & Treatment of Chandler v. State, 382 S.C. 250, 259 , 676 S.E.2d 676, 680 (2009) (reversing the circuit court's order that found no probable cause and concluding the defendant had "developed a pattern of engaging in inappropriate conduct" that conti 2019The State's inability to provide mental health evidence does not prevent a finding of probable cause."); White v. State, 375 S.C. 1, 9-10 , 649 S.E.2d 172, 176-77 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding previous unadjudicated offenses are directly relevant to a determination of whether probable cause exists to believe someone is a sexually violent predator); Care & Treatment of Chandler v. State, 382 S.C. 250, 259 , 676 S.E.2d 676, 680 (2009) (reversing the circuit court's order that found no probable cause and concluding the defendant had "developed a pattern of engaging in inappropriate conduct" that conti | 1 | 1 |
Terry v. Terrygreen2 sentences2017The family court at the final hearing has the authority to redress any error from the temporary order."); id. at 457 , 734 S.E.2d at 648 ("If a party desires to challenge the family court's final resolution of the matter, the aggrieved party may appeal from final judgment."); Hooper v. Rockwell, 334 S.C. 281, 291 , 513 S.E.2d 358, 363 (1999) ("[A]n order issued as a result of a probable cause hearing in an emergency removal case is interlocutory in nature and not immediately appealable."); id. at 291 , 513 S.E.2d at 364 ("However, any order issued as a result of a merit hearing, as well as any 2017The family court at the final hearing has the authority to redress any error from the temporary order."); id. at 457 , 734 S.E.2d at 648 ("If a party desires to challenge the family court's final resolution of the matter, the aggrieved party may appeal from final judgment."); Hooper v. Rockwell, 334 S.C. 281, 291 , 513 S.E.2d 358, 363 (1999) ("[A]n order issued as a result of a probable cause hearing in an emergency removal case is interlocutory in nature and not immediately appealable."); id. at 291 , 513 S.E.2d at 364 ("However, any order issued as a result of a merit hearing, as well as any | 1 | 1 |
Morrissey v. Brewergreen1 sentence2017"Once it is determined that due process applies, the question remains what process is due." Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 (1972). "[T]he phrase [due process] expresses the requirement of 'fundamental fairness,' a requirement whose meaning can be as 1 Asquith's appellate counsel argued at oral argument that the SVP Act includes three stages of proceedings—(1) the probable cause hearing; (2) the pre- commitment evaluation; and (3) the trial—and by using the term "all stages of the proceedings" in section 44-48-90(B), implicit in the legislative intent is the right to the presence of an | 1 | 1 |
Page v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Page v. State, 364 S.C. 632, 636-37 , 615 S.E.2d 740, 742 (2005) (finding any possible civil commitment pursuant to the SVP Act does not flow directly from a defendant's guilty plea, but rather from a separate civil proceeding in which testing, evaluation, a probable cause hearing, and a trial by either the court or jury occurs). . 2013See Page v. State, 364 S.C. 632, 636-37 , 615 S.E.2d 740, 742 (2005) (finding any possible civil commitment pursuant to the SVP Act does not flow directly from a defendant's guilty plea, but rather from a separate civil proceeding in which testing, evaluation, a probable cause hearing, and a trial by either the court or jury occurs). . | 1 | 1 |
CARE AND TREATMENT OF VALENTINE v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See In re Care & Treatment of *262 Valentine, 377 S.C. 244, 254-55 , 659 S.E.2d 227, 233 (Ct.App. 2008) (reversing and remanding circuit court's finding that State failed to meet its burden for ordering civil commitment of inmate under SVPA; recognizing that three separate probable cause determinations precede a civil commitment trial under the SVPA). 2011See In re Care & Treatment of *262 Valentine, 377 S.C. 244, 254-55 , 659 S.E.2d 227, 233 (Ct.App. 2008) (reversing and remanding circuit court's finding that State failed to meet its burden for ordering civil commitment of inmate under SVPA; recognizing that three separate probable cause determinations precede a civil commitment trial under the SVPA). | 1 | 1 |
Detention of Petersen v. Stategreen1 sentence2006In re Detention of Petersen , 42 P.3d 952, 957 (Wash. 2002). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Care & Treatment of Fostergreen1 sentence2006In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Foster , 127 P.3d 277, 284 (Kan. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lejeunegreen2 sentences2004See California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 394 , 105 S.Ct. 2066 , 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985) (The two requirements for the application of the automobile exception “ensure that law enforcement officials are not unnecessarily hamstrung in their efforts to detect and prosecute criminal activity, and that the legitimate privacy interests of the public are protected.”); State v. LeJeune, 276 Ga. 179 , 576 S.E.2d 888, 892 (2003) *85 (“[T]he ‘automobile exception’ cases do not hold that a search warrant is never needed to search a car. 2004See California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 394 , 105 S.Ct. 2066 , 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985) (The two requirements for the application of the automobile exception “ensure that law enforcement officials are not unnecessarily hamstrung in their efforts to detect and prosecute criminal activity, and that the legitimate privacy interests of the public are protected.”); State v. LeJeune, 276 Ga. 179 , 576 S.E.2d 888, 892 (2003) *85 (“[T]he ‘automobile exception’ cases do not hold that a search warrant is never needed to search a car. | 1 | 1 |
| Golino v. City of New Havengreen | 1 | 1 |
| California v. Carneygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Stump v. Sparkmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| S.C. Police Officers Retirement System v. City of Spartanburggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Care & Treatment of Matthews
green
2 sentences2009The Matthews court found “the legislature’s use of the word ‘shall’ in section 4448-90 indicates the holding of a trial within sixty days of the probable cause hearing is mandatory.” 345 S.C. at 644 , 550 S.E.2d at 313 . 2009The Matthews court found “the legislature’s use of the word ‘shall’ in section 4448-90 indicates the holding of a trial within sixty days of the probable cause hearing is mandatory.” 345 S.C. at 644 , 550 S.E.2d at 313 . | 2 | 2009–2011 |
In Matter of Evans
green
2 sentences2009It is important to note also that “a finding of probable cause at the probable cause hearing does not ... finally decide the question of whether that person is a sexually violent predator.” Id. at 275 n. 2, 642 S.E.2d at 580 n. 2. 2009It is important to note also that “a finding of probable cause at the probable cause hearing does not ... finally decide the question of whether that person is a sexually violent predator.” Id. at 275 n. 2, 642 S.E.2d at 580 n. 2. | 2 | 2008–2009 |
In Re the Care & Treatment of Tucker
green
2 sentences2023Contrary to Johnson's suggestion that no published South Carolina decision has addressed the appropriate probable cause standard under section 44-48-110, State v. Tucker, 353 S.C. 466 , 578 S.E.2d 719 (2003), which concerned an annual review hearing with competing evidence about the eligibility of a person committed to a sexually violent predator treatment program (SVPTP) for release, is on point and controlling authority. 2023Contrary to Johnson's suggestion that no published South Carolina decision has addressed the appropriate probable cause standard under section 44-48-110, State v. Tucker, 353 S.C. 466 , 578 S.E.2d 719 (2003), which concerned an annual review hearing with competing evidence about the eligibility of a person committed to a sexually violent predator treatment program (SVPTP) for release, is on point and controlling authority. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
CARE AND TREATMENT OF ETTEL v. State
green
2 sentences2022Pursuant to Rule 403, "relevant evidence may be excluded if the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value." Ettel, 377 S.C. at 561 , 660 S.E.2d at 287 (citing Rule 403, SCRE). 2022Pursuant to Rule 403, "relevant evidence may be excluded if the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value." Ettel, 377 S.C. at 561 , 660 S.E.2d at 287 (citing Rule 403, SCRE). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Chaidez v. United States
green
2 sentences2013In Chaidez v. U.S., - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1103 , 185 L.Ed.2d 149 (2013), the USSC re-emphasized the underlying rationale in Padilla that deportation is unique and such a detrimental and drastic consequence it should be treated differently than other collateral consequences. 2013In Chaidez v. U.S., - U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1103 , 185 L.Ed.2d 149 (2013), the USSC re-emphasized the underlying rationale in Padilla that deportation is unique and such a detrimental and drastic consequence it should be treated differently than other collateral consequences. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Loe v. MOTHER, FATHER, AND BERKELEY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
green
2 sentences2013Id. at 459 , 675 S.E.2d at 808-09 . 2013Id. at 459 , 675 S.E.2d at 808-09 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re the Care & Treatment of Miller
green
2 sentences2011Although the court found the facts of the case did not warrant reversal, it emphasized that "SVP trials should take priority when scheduling a court's docket, precisely because of the potential for the prolonged incarceration evidenced in this case." Id. at 549 , 685 S.E.2d at 624-25 . 2011Although the court found the facts of the case did not warrant reversal, it emphasized that "SVP trials should take priority when scheduling a court's docket, precisely because of the potential for the prolonged incarceration evidenced in this case." Id. at 549 , 685 S.E.2d at 624-25 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Townes v. Com.
green
1 sentence2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Banda
green
2 sentences2009Banda, 371 S.C. at 252 n. 3, 639 S.E.2d at 40 n. 3; Arkansas v. Sullivan, 532 U.S. at 772 , 121 S.Ct. 1876 . 2009Banda, 371 S.C. at 252 n. 3, 639 S.E.2d at 40 n. 3; Arkansas v. Sullivan, 532 U.S. at 772 , 121 S.Ct. 1876 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Arkansas v. Sullivan
green
2 sentences2009Banda, 371 S.C. at 252 n. 3, 639 S.E.2d at 40 n. 3; Arkansas v. Sullivan, 532 U.S. at 772 , 121 S.Ct. 1876 . 2009Banda, 371 S.C. at 252 n. 3, 639 S.E.2d at 40 n. 3; Arkansas v. Sullivan, 532 U.S. at 772 , 121 S.Ct. 1876 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Care and Treatment of Brown v. State
green
2 sentences2009In my opinion, there is evidence in the record which supports the probable cause hearing judge’s conclusion that respondent does not suffer from “a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes him likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility for long-term control, care, and treatment.” S.C.Code Ann. § 44-48-30(1)(b) (Supp.2007) (definition of sexually violent predator); In the Matter of Brown, 372 S.C. 611 , 643 S.E.2d 118 (Ct.App.2007) (any evidence scope of review on appeal from probable cause determination). 2009In my opinion, there is evidence in the record which supports the probable cause hearing judge’s conclusion that respondent does not suffer from “a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes him likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility for long-term control, care, and treatment.” S.C.Code Ann. § 44-48-30(1)(b) (Supp.2007) (definition of sexually violent predator); In the Matter of Brown, 372 S.C. 611 , 643 S.E.2d 118 (Ct.App.2007) (any evidence scope of review on appeal from probable cause determination). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Care and Treatment of Beaver v. State
green
2 sentences2008Beaver, 372 S.C. at 275 , 642 S.E.2d at 580 n. 2 (citing S.C.Code Ann. §§ 44-48-80 through 90 (Supp.2006)). 2008Beaver, 372 S.C. at 276 -78 n. 3, 642 S.E.2d at 580-82 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.
green
2 sentences2007Skinner, supra at 619 , 109 S.Ct. 1402 . 2007Skinner; supra at 619, 109 S.Ct. 1402 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
In Re the Treatment & Care of Luckabaugh
green
2 sentences2007Cf. In re Treatment and Care of Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. 122 , 568 S.E.2d 338 (2002) (on review, the appellate court will not disturb the hearing court’s finding on probable cause unless found to be without evidence that reasonably supports the hearing court’s finding). *279 As an additional sustaining ground, respondent argues the State’s petition should be dismissed because it cannot comply with the statutory requirement that the court must conduct a trial to determine whether the person is a sexually violent predator within sixty days of the completion of the probable cause hearing. 2007Cf. In re Treatment and Care of Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. 122 , 568 S.E.2d 338 (2002) (on review, the appellate court will not disturb the hearing court’s finding on probable cause unless found to be without evidence that reasonably supports the hearing court’s finding). *279 As an additional sustaining ground, respondent argues the State’s petition should be dismissed because it cannot comply with the statutory requirement that the court must conduct a trial to determine whether the person is a sexually violent predator within sixty days of the completion of the probable cause hearing. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Mark Rogers, Eric Pelcher and Mark Emigh v. City of Amsterdam, Thomas McQuade and Todd Stark, Mary Ann Smith green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Burns v. Reed green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Imbler v. Pachtman green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.