THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
James McKinney, Appellant.
Appeal From Spartanburg County
J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-024
Submitted October 22, 2002 – Filed January 8, 2003
Chief Appellate Defender Daniel T. Stacey, of Columbia, for appellant.
Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson; Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: As to Issues I and II: State v. Bellamy, 336 S.C. 140, 144, 519 S.E.2d 347, 349 (1999) (holding this Court’s task is to decide whether “the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed”); Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39 (1983) (“[T]he duty of the reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.”); State v. Sullivan, 267 S.C. 610, 617, 230 S.E.2d 621, 624 (1976) (holding a reviewing court should accord deference to the magistrate’s determination of probable cause); State v. Bennett, 256 S.C. 234, 241 182 S.E.2d 291, 294 (1971) (holding doubtful or marginal cases should be resolved in favor of upholding the warrant); see Gates, 462 U.S. at 236 (holding the Fourth Amendment evidences a “strong preference for searches conducted pursuant to a warrant”); Bellamy, 336 S.C. at 143, 519 S.E.2d at 348 (holding a magistrate may issue a warrant only upon a finding of probable cause); Id. (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 238) (holding the determination of probable cause requires the magistrate to “make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all 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”).
As to Issue II: State v. Dupree, 319 S.C. 454, 459, 462 S.E.2d 279, 282 (1995) (quoting Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 769-70 (1966)) (holding a search authorizing bodily intrusion requires “‘a clear indication that in fact evidence would be found’ in addition to probable cause”).
CONNOR, STILWELL, and HOWARD, JJ., concur.
 Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving any issue on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215 and 220(b)(2), SCACR.