State v. Thompson, 419 S.C. 250

Background

Alphonso Thompson was convicted of trafficking >400g cocaine, possession of a weapon during a violent crime, and PWID marijuana after evidence seized from his parents' home at 120 River Street.
Officers obtained a search warrant based on an affidavit recounting multiple informant tips (2007–2009), controlled buys, surveillance, and a May 2010 recorded buy involving Thompson and an associate.
The affidavit claimed investigators had observed Thompson visit 120 River Street in the six months before the affidavit and that drug deliveries had been made there on several occasions (last specific hearsay reference dated February 2009).
No supplemental oral testimony accompanied the affidavit when presented to the issuing circuit court judge; the judge issued the warrant and the search recovered cocaine, marijuana, and firearms.
Thompson moved to suppress the River Street evidence, arguing the affidavit lacked a timely nexus and relied on stale/uncorroborated hearsay; trial court denied suppression, Court of Appeals affirmed, and the South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the affidavit established probable cause tying the contraband to 120 River Street	Thompson: affidavit lacked timely, particularized nexus; relied on stale hearsay and unverified informant claims	State: affidavit’s informant tips, surveillance, and recent controlled buy created a fair probability contraband was at River St.	Reversed — affidavit failed to show a fair probability evidence would be found at 120 River St.
Whether observations that Thompson visited River St. “just before” deliveries in prior 6 months supplied sufficient nexus	Thompson: vague, non‑specific and not tied to contemporaneous drug possession at the house	State: such surveillance supports inference of on‑site drug activity	Held insufficient — non‑specific visits did not establish that contraband would be at the residence at the time of the warrant.
Whether older hearsay statements (e.g., deliveries through 2009) were stale	Thompson: last specific corroborated hearsay was remote (Feb 2009), so stale for May 2010 warrant	State: prior corroborated reports plus later surveillance overcame staleness	Court: staleness concern upheld; affidavit lacked specific post‑Feb 2009 facts linking River St. to contraband.
Whether suppression was required when no supplemental oral testimony was provided	Thompson: without testimony, review is limited to four corners of affidavit showing lack of nexus	State: affidavit alone sufficiently established probable cause	Court: limited to four corners and found affidavit insufficient; suppression warranted for River St. evidence.

Key Cases Cited

Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (warrant requires reasonable belief items to be seized are at place searched)
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (evidence seized in violation of Fourth Amendment must be excluded)
State v. Tench, 353 S.C. 531 (probable cause requires fair probability evidence will be found at the place to be searched)
State v. Kinloch, 410 S.C. 612 (issuing judge’s determination limited to four corners absent supplemental testimony)
State v. Gore, 408 S.C. 237 (surveillance showing defendant left residence to sell drugs can supply nexus)
State v. Jones, 342 S.C. 121 (judge may issue warrant only upon finding probable cause)
State v. Khingratsaiphon, 352 S.C. 62 (Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applies)
State v. Scott, 303 S.C. 360 (continuous visual contact from residence to transaction can support warrant)