Franks hearing in South Carolina

2024More significantly, even if Detective Kahn's affidavit had included the neighbor's description, his affidavit and sworn supplemental testimony "would still provide the probable cause necessary for issuance of the warrant." Id. at 573, 878 S.E.2d at 377; see also State v. Missouri, 337 S.C. 548, 554 , 524 S.E.2d 394, 397 (1999) ("There will be no Franks violation if the affidavit, including the omitted data, still contains sufficient information to establish probable cause.").

2024More significantly, even if Detective Kahn's affidavit had included the neighbor's description, his affidavit and sworn supplemental testimony "would still provide the probable cause necessary for issuance of the warrant." Id. at 573, 878 S.E.2d at 377; see also State v. Missouri, 337 S.C. 548, 554 , 524 S.E.2d 394, 397 (1999) ("There will be no Franks violation if the affidavit, including the omitted data, still contains sufficient information to establish probable cause.").

2022See State v. Porch, 417 S.C. 619, 626 , 790 S.E.2d 440, 444 (Ct. App. 2016) ("Entitlement to a Franks hearing is a matter of law subject to de novo review."); Franks, 438 U.S. at 171 ("There is . . . a presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting [a] search warrant."); id. at 171-72 (providing a criminal defendant is entitled to a hearing on the veracity of the factual assertions contained within a search warrant 1 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (allowing defendants to challenge a probable cause determination in limited circumstances). affidavit if (1) the criminal defendant makes a p

2022See State v. Porch, 417 S.C. 619, 626 , 790 S.E.2d 440, 444 (Ct. App. 2016) ("Entitlement to a Franks hearing is a matter of law subject to de novo review."); Franks, 438 U.S. at 171 ("There is . . . a presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting [a] search warrant."); id. at 171-72 (providing a criminal defendant is entitled to a hearing on the veracity of the factual assertions contained within a search warrant 1 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (allowing defendants to challenge a probable cause determination in limited circumstances). affidavit if (1) the criminal defendant makes a p

2021To obtain a Franks hearing[,] the defendant must show that the omission is the product of a 'deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth.'" U.S. v. Colkley, 899 F.2d 297, 301 (4th Cir. 1990) (quoting Franks, 438 U.S. at 171 ).

2021To obtain a Franks hearing[,] the defendant must show that the omission is the product of a 'deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth.'" U.S. v. Colkley, 899 F.2d 297, 301 (4th Cir. 1990) (quoting Franks, 438 U.S. at 171 ).

2016United States v. Tate, 524 F.3d 449, 455 (4th Cir. 2008).

2016United States v. Tate, 524 F.3d 449, 455 (4th Cir. 2008).

2014If the court determines no probable cause exists after the false material is omitted from the analysis, “the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit.” Id. (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 ); see Missouri, 337 S.C. at 553-54 , 524 S.E.2d at 396-97 (adopting the two-prong Franks test).

2014If the court determines no probable cause exists after the false material is omitted from the analysis, “the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit.” Id. (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 ); see Missouri, 337 S.C. at 553-54 , 524 S.E.2d at 396-97 (adopting the two-prong Franks test).

2026See Gore, 408 S.C. at 244 , 758 S.E.2d at 721 ("Franks outlined a two-prong test for challenging the veracity of a search[-]warrant affidavit." (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56 )).

2026See Gore, 408 S.C. at 244 , 758 S.E.2d at 721 ("Franks outlined a two-prong test for challenging the veracity of a search[-]warrant affidavit." (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56 )).

2022See State v. Porch, 417 S.C. 619, 626 , 790 S.E.2d 440, 444 (Ct. App. 2016) ("Entitlement to a Franks hearing is a matter of law subject to de novo review."); Franks, 438 U.S. at 171 ("There is . . . a presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting [a] search warrant."); id. at 171-72 (providing a criminal defendant is entitled to a hearing on the veracity of the factual assertions contained within a search warrant 1 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (allowing defendants to challenge a probable cause determination in limited circumstances). affidavit if (1) the criminal defendant makes a p

2022See State v. Porch, 417 S.C. 619, 626 , 790 S.E.2d 440, 444 (Ct. App. 2016) ("Entitlement to a Franks hearing is a matter of law subject to de novo review."); Franks, 438 U.S. at 171 ("There is . . . a presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting [a] search warrant."); id. at 171-72 (providing a criminal defendant is entitled to a hearing on the veracity of the factual assertions contained within a search warrant 1 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (allowing defendants to challenge a probable cause determination in limited circumstances). affidavit if (1) the criminal defendant makes a p

2019Cf. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 156 (1978) (finding the intentional inclusion of inaccurate information in an affidavit will void the warrant if, when the false material is set to the side, the affidavit is insufficient to establish probable cause); see also State v. Davis, 371 S.C. 413 , 416, 639 S.E.2d 457, 459 ("There will be no Franks violation if the affidavit . . . still contains sufficient information to establish probable cause." (quoting State v. Missouri, 337 S.C. 548, 554 , 524 S.E.2d 394, 397 (1999)).

2016“The mere fact that the affiant did not list every conceivable conclusion does not taint the validity of the affidavit.” Colkley, 899 F.2d at 301 (quoting United States v. Burnes, 816 F.2d 1354, 1358 (9th Cir. 1987)). “‘[M]ere[] neligen[ce] in ... recording the facts relevant to a probable cause determination’ is not enough.” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Franks, 438 U.S. at 170, 98 S.Ct. 2674 ).

2016“The mere fact that the affiant did not list every conceivable conclusion does not taint the validity of the affidavit.” Colkley, 899 F.2d at 301 (quoting United States v. Burnes, 816 F.2d 1354, 1358 (9th Cir. 1987)). “‘[M]ere[] neligen[ce] in ... recording the facts relevant to a probable cause determination’ is not enough.” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Franks, 438 U.S. at 170, 98 S.Ct. 2674 ).

2015“Entitlement to a Franks hearing is a matter of law subject to de novo review.” Horton v. City of Columbia, 408 S.C. 27, 36 , 757 S.E.2d 537, 541 (Ct.App.2014), cert granted.

2015“Entitlement to a Franks hearing is a matter of law subject to de novo review.” Horton v. City of Columbia, 408 S.C. 27, 36 , 757 S.E.2d 537, 541 (Ct.App.2014), cert granted.

2012See State v. Davis, 354 S.C. 348, 360-61 , 580 S.E.2d 778 , 784- 85 (Ct. App. 2003) (holding Franks issue was not preserved for review when the defendant did not assert below that false information was intentionally or recklessly included in the affidavit and the trial judge made no ruling on that issue); see also State v. Rutledge, 373 S.C. 312, 318 , 644 S.E.2d 789, 792 (Ct. App. 2007) ("There is a presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting the search warrant.") (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. at 171 ); State v. Missouri, 337 S.C. 548, 554 , 524 S.E.2d 394, 397 (1

2012See State v. Davis, 354 S.C. 348, 360-61 , 580 S.E.2d 778 , 784- 85 (Ct. App. 2003) (holding Franks issue was not preserved for review when the defendant did not assert below that false information was intentionally or recklessly included in the affidavit and the trial judge made no ruling on that issue); see also State v. Rutledge, 373 S.C. 312, 318 , 644 S.E.2d 789, 792 (Ct. App. 2007) ("There is a presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting the search warrant.") (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. at 171 ); State v. Missouri, 337 S.C. 548, 554 , 524 S.E.2d 394, 397 (1

2010See Grossman , 400 F.3d at 218 (noting the mere fact the defendant splits his time among several different homes does not invalidate the search); United States v. Williams , 974 F.2d 480, 482 (4th Cir. 1992) (finding sufficient nexus to search motel room despite the short duration of defendant's stay).

2010See Grossman , 400 F.3d at 218 (noting the mere fact the defendant splits his time among several different homes does not invalidate the search); United States v. Williams , 974 F.2d 480, 482 (4th Cir. 1992) (finding sufficient nexus to search motel room despite the short duration of defendant's stay).

2010See Grossman , 400 F.3d at 218 (noting the mere fact the defendant splits his time among several different homes does not invalidate the search); United States v. Williams , 974 F.2d 480, 482 (4th Cir. 1992) (finding sufficient nexus to search motel room despite the short duration of defendant's stay).

2010See Grossman , 400 F.3d at 218 (noting the mere fact the defendant splits his time among several different homes does not invalidate the search); United States v. Williams , 974 F.2d 480, 482 (4th Cir. 1992) (finding sufficient nexus to search motel room despite the short duration of defendant's stay).

2010See Rule 208(b)(1)(D), SCACR (an issue not argued in the brief is deemed abandoned on appeal); State v. Woods , 382 S.C. 153, 161 , 676 S.E.2d 128, 132 (2009) (holding appellant's failure to challenge the trial judge's finding renders that ruling the law of the case).

2010See Rule 208(b)(1)(D), SCACR (an issue not argued in the brief is deemed abandoned on appeal); State v. Woods , 382 S.C. 153, 161 , 676 S.E.2d 128, 132 (2009) (holding appellant's failure to challenge the trial judge's finding renders that ruling the law of the case).

2003D.C. 1990) (upholding search warrant based in part on detective=s affidavit that defendant Astrongly resembled@ composite drawing of wanted suspect); Issue II : State v. Harris , 340 S.C. 59, 63 , 530 S.E.2d 626, 628 (2000) (AA mistrial should only be granted when absolutely necessary.

2003D.C. 1990) (upholding search warrant based in part on detective=s affidavit that defendant Astrongly resembled@ composite drawing of wanted suspect); Issue II : State v. Harris , 340 S.C. 59, 63 , 530 S.E.2d 626, 628 (2000) (AA mistrial should only be granted when absolutely necessary.