The 4th: Typo in search warrant


“The date typed on the search warrant was January 5, 1972, and the search was made January 5, 1973, in violation, it is claimed, of Section 17-271, Code of 1962 (Cum.Supp.), which requires execution and return ‘within ten days after (the warrant) is dated.’ This was a mere typographical error not affecting [t]he validity of the search which actually occurred within an hour or two of the issuance of the warrant.”


State v. Shupper, 263 S.C. 53, 57 (1974)



“Herring asserts the statute requires the affiant appear before the magistrate in person. We disagree.

Contrary to Herring's contention, the language does not state an affidavit must be sworn in person. It only requires the affidavit be sworn. Officer Lawrence, who prepared the affidavit, was sworn over the telephone by the Magistrate. We find this complies with the literal terms of the statute such that there was no defect in the warrant.

Herring cites State v. McKnight, 291 S.C. 110 (1987) as supporting his contention that issuance of a warrant via facsimile was invalid. In McKnight, police officers appeared before a magistrate to obtain a warrant, but did not complete an affidavit in support thereof. Notwithstanding the officers were sworn and gave oral testimony to the magistrate, we held a ‘search warrant affidavit which itself is insufficient to establish probable cause may be supplemented before the magistrate by sworn oral testimony.... However, sworn oral testimony, standing alone, does not satisfy the statute.’ In McKnight, we found the mandatory requirement of an affidavit lacking, thereby requiring suppression. The Court noted § 17–13–140 imposes stricter requirements than does the Fourth Amendment, and that ‘[a] search warrant that would survive constitutional scrutiny may still be defective under the statute.’

Recently, however, we recognized that there is a ‘good faith exception to the statute's [S.C.Code Ann. 17–13–140] requirements where the officers make a good faith attempt to comply with the statute's affidavit procedures.’ State v. Covert, 382 S.C. 205 (2009).”


State v. Herring, 387 S.C. 201, 214–15 (2009) (citations omitted)

© 2020 by Everyday Evidence

Daniel@everydayevidence.og

  • LinkedIn Social Icon
  • Twitter Social Icon
  • Facebook Social Icon