II.     PREPARATION OF THE AFFIDAVIT           The affidavit for search warrant form reproduced on the following page has been appropriately marked to correspond with the elements described below and discussed in the following pages.   A.         JURISDICTION     B. NAME OF AFFIANT     C. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SOUGHT     D. DESCRIPTION OF PLACE TO BE SEARCHED (Person, Place or Thing to be Searched)     E. JUSTIFICATION FOR SEIZURE  (statement of probable cause)     F. IDENTIFICATION OF AFFIANT     G. CERTIFICATION AND SUBSCRIPTION BY ISSUING OFFICER     A. JURISDICTION   List here the name of the county where the property sought is located.   S.C. Code § 17-13-140 Specifies jurisdiction:   Any magistrate or recorder or city judge having the powers of magistrates, or any judge of any court of record of the State having jurisdiction over the area where the property sought is located…     B. NAME OF AFFIANT   In this space type or print the name of the person preparing the affidavit.     C. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SOUGHT   The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids a general exploratory warrant. Property to be seized under a warrant should be identified as clearly and distinctly as possible. If the property lends itself to ready identification by physical description and serial number, both of which are reasonably available to the officer then such data should be included in the affidavit.   EXAMPLE:   "One Remington shotgun, Model 870, Serial #964321, with 28" vent rib barrel."   In other cases, the property identified by brand name, and a specific quantity, will serve to distinguish the property sought. For example, "That the affiant has reason to believe, and does believe, that there is now being concealed certain property, to wit:   EXAMPLE:   A large number, believed to be 25 Panasonic, VCR Video Recorders gray Color, Model #XR7000, packaged in brown cardboard cartons with dimensions 20" long, 16" wide, 8" high and with bold print on the sides of the cartons, "Panasonic Model XR7000."   In this manner, currency taken in a robbery could be sufficiently described by reference to the total amount or the appropriate number of bills in each denomination. Precise descriptive data, including individual serial numbers, may be impossible or impractical to furnish.   OTHER COMMON EXAMPLES:   Marijuana   Marijuana, marijuana plants, marijuana seeds, and paraphernalia including, but not limited to: pipes, alligator clips, cigarette rolling paper and other devices used to assist in the smoking of marijuana; containers of various types commonly associated with the storage or use of said contraband and articles of personal property tending to establish the identity of persons in control of areas where contraband is found.   Cocaine   Cocaine (and/or Crack Cocaine), a Schedule II Drug and Controlled Substance and Paraphernalia, including but not limited to, containers of various types commonly associated with the storage of cocaine and implements used in administering or ingesting cocaine and books and records associated with the purchase and sale of cocaine as well as items by personal property tending to establish the identity of persons in control of areas searched.   Bookmaking Paraphernalia   Papers, pencils, "scratch sheets" and other racing information, bet registrations, sophisticated and unusual telephone equipment, and all other bookmaking property and paraphernalia used or capable of being used for the purpose of recording or registering bets and wagers upon horse races and sporting events, U.S. currency, adding machines, gelatin or flash paper, and other property tending to establish the identity of persons in control of areas where bookmaking paraphernalia are found.   Gambling (Generally)   Playing cards, chips and tables used for poker; punch boards; slot machines; dice, chips and tables used for craps (Roulette or Black Jack) and U.S. currency used for gambling and articles of personal property tending to establish the identity of persons in control of areas lawfully searched.   White Collar Crime Financial Records   A description of financial records to be seized must be tailored to the specific crime committed; i.e. Insurance Fraud, Home Improvement Fraud, consumer Fraud, etc. Include a direction to seize "original source data records" from the following: All monies, negotiable instruments, securities, check books, bank statements, deposit slips, money storage and transfer methods, broker statements, contracts, purchase orders, purchase agreements, sales slips, bills of sale, invoices, production records, escrow agreements, deeds of trust, leases, tax records, insurance policies, insurance claims, mailing lists, customer lists.   Burglar's Tools   Vice grips, punches, wires, lock picks, jimmies, sledge hammers, axes, pry bars, screwdrivers, skeleton keys, master keys, chisels, drills, explosives, pipe cutters, wire cutters, bolt cutters, saws, hoists, blowpipes, flashlights, knives, razor blades, wrenches, tape, gloves, and other tools, instruments and implements suitable for breaking into a premises or avoiding detection; and articles of personal property tending to establish the identity of persons in control of areas lawfully searched.   One area in which particularity of description is essential concerns property that draws upon both First and Fourth Amendment protections. Search warrants directed at the seizure of books and papers must describe the particular items to be taken. An effort to authorize the seizure of "obscene material," for example, fails because such a warrant leaves to the discretion of the executing officer the determination as to what is and what is not "obscene." When the material sought enjoys the added protection of the free speech and free press provisions of the First Amendment, the clearest identification possible is required. As a general rule, if the property is contraband, the possession of which is unlawful, it does not have to be described in great detail; however, if it is noncontraband, then greater detail must be used in describing it.     D.         DESCRIPTION OF PLACE TO BE SEARCHED (Person, Place, or Thing to be Searched)   The Fourth Amendment requires that the place to be searched be described with particularity. The general rule is that the description should be of sufficient particularity so that if an officer with no knowledge of the case were assigned to execute the search warrant, he/she would have no difficulty in identifying and locating the person, place, or thing to be searched.   In giving a street address, it is important to specify "North," "South," "East," or "West," if that is part of the address. Also, the "Street," "Place," "Road," or "Drive," should be shown.   1.     Single Family Residence - The complete address and a brief description of its outer appearance should be included. A phrase which makes clear the search is to encompass the entire structure should be included, and where appropriate, a description of surrounding grounds and other related buildings and improvements, such as storage sheds and detached garages.   EXAMPLE:   … the premises at 1418 Cedar Drive, Columbia, S.C.; further described as a single-story dwelling house, red brick exterior, white shutters, and a gray roof, and all rooms, attic, basement, and other parts therein, and the surrounding grounds and any garage, storage rooms, and outbuildings of any kind located thereon.   2. APARTMENT - An apartment unit, not the entire apartment building should be particularly described. The apartment number or letter must be included. If such a designation is not available, the location of the apartment within the building must be accurately shown.   EXAMPLE:   1056 Piedmont Avenue, Greenville, SC, Apartment No. 1-A; further described as a first floor apartment unit within a two-story, multi-unit apartment house, white brick structure bearing the name "Lions Gate Apartments," and all rooms, attics, and other parts within Apartment No. 1-A, and all garages, trash containers, and storage areas designated for the use of Apartment No. 1-A.   3. Store or Business - The address, name of the business, and a brief description of its outer appearance should be stated.   EXAMPLE:   The premises known as "Porky's Barbeque," located at 1314 Jefferson Davis Highway, Florence, SC, a restaurant in a single-story commercial building, with the word "Porky's" appearing in large black letters on the front window, and all rooms, dining areas, service areas, kitchens, pantries, stoves, refrigerators, freezers, restrooms and other parts within the business, including an office located in the rear of the premises, and any storage rooms, storage areas, trash areas and trash containers attached or unattached. Such a description makes clear that the magistrate is authorizing a thorough search of all parts of the business, including the office.   4. Vehicles - As a general rule, the color, year, make, model, license and VIN number, if available, of the vehicle to be searched is sufficient to constitute an adequate description.   EXAMPLE:   A black, 1982 Chevrolet, Impala, two-door sedan, bearing SC license FLU 617. If the license number of the vehicle is unknown, details of its appearance, so as to distinguish it from other vehicles, should be included. Examples of such distinguishing characteristics would be: a broken right headlight, a dented right rear fender, or a distinctive decal, "Clemson Tigers, 1981 National Champion."   5. Persons - Descriptions of a person should include the name, sex, race, age, height, weight, hair color, and eye color, as well as distinguishing tattoos or marks. If the search of the person is being conducted in conjunction with the search of the premises, the officer should include in the description his belief that the person will be located within the described premises.   6. Places Where Address is Unknown - If no address is known or the location is not marked with an address, a specific description will be especially important. The description should be sufficiently detailed to avoid mistaking the place to be searched. In this regard, the use of photographs and diagrams as a supplement to a written description should be considered.   EXAMPLE:   A small wooden barn, with weathered exterior, located on the west side of Highway 221, approximately 1.7 miles south of Mudd Road, in Spartanburg County, SC, as shown on the color photographs attached hereto and incorporated as Exhibit #1, and all rooms, lofts, storage areas, and the surrounding grounds. A duplicate photograph should then be marked Exhibit #1 and attached to the affidavit.   E.         JUSTIFICATION FOR SEIZURE (Statement of Probable Cause)   On the affidavit page of the South Carolina search warrant form, this is listed as "reason for affiant's belief that the property sought is on the subject premises." It is the officer's statement of probable cause.   1.     Definitions   Basic to the concept of probable cause and its applications in our legal system is the principle that a judicial office must make an independent judgment as to whether the Fourth Amendment standard has been met. He may not rely on the conclusion of the officer that an invasion of the privacy of a home would be reasonable and is necessary. Instead, the responsibilities in this area are shared so that the officer is charged with the collection of facts and the magistrate assesses their significance in the eyes of the law. This scheme is directed at achieving the balance of executive and judicial power that is reflected throughout the government of the United States.   Any relevant, legally obtained evidence may be considered on the issue of probable cause even though the evidence might not be competent proof at trial. For example, hearsay or a suspect's prior criminal record can be considered.   The General Assembly has assisted in this process by providing guidelines for the issuance of a warrant:   S.C. Code § 17-16-140. Specifically limits the grounds for issuance to:                    …Stolen or embezzled property; (2) property, the possession of which if unlawful; (3) property which is being used or has been used in the commission of a criminal offense or is possessed with the intent to be used as the means for committing a criminal offense or is concealed to prevent a criminal offense from being discovered; (4) property constituting evidence of crime or tending to show that a particular person committed a criminal offense; (5) any narcotic drugs, barbiturates, amphetamines or other drugs…   2.     Elements   To constitute probable cause for a search, three conclusions must be supported: (1) that an offense has been committed; (2) that the items sought are connected with criminal activity; and (3) that such items will presently be found in the place to be searched.   Facts Detailing the Offense   The starting point is to explain the fact that there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Unless there is some offense to which the officer may refer, there is no authority to invade constitutionally protected areas in a search for evidence.   The function of the affidavit is to tell the story clearly and convincingly. Elaborate proof is not required, but the facts must contain enough information to indicate what happened. Citation of the code sections is helpful but not as effective as a simple recitation of facts as they transpired, with particular attention to dates, times and locations of the criminal activity, and when the affiant received the information.   Facts Relating Certain Property to Offense   The facts gathered must show that the property sought is connected to the crime. Property becomes subject to seizure because of its connection with criminal activity. Thus, the items stolen in a crime (fruits), the means by which the crime was committed (instrumentalities), items which are unlawful to possess (contraband) and other items relevant to the crime (mere evidence) are seizable. For example, if a gun is sought in connection with a robbery, an affidavit filed for a search warrant must contain facts indicating its connection to the crime, such as the fact that it was used in the commission of the crime.   In drafting the affidavit there is no particular form or language used to describe the relationship. Substance, expressed in ordinary language is best.   Refer to Page 3 for specific categories seizable under S.C. Code §17-13-140: (1) stolen or embezzled property; (2) property, the possession of which is unlawful; (3) property used in the commission of a crime; (4) property constituting evidence of a crime; and (5) controlled substances.   Facts Showing Property Sought is at Location to be Searched   After showing that there is legal justification for seizure of certain property, its physical location must be specified and this allegation must be supported by facts. The affidavit will be most persuasive if the facts indicate a probability that the objects to be seized are right now located in the place to be searched. *(See page 21, "Anticipatory Search Warrant" exception.)   An officer should ensure that the information offered to the magistrate contains a statement as to the time when the facts relied upon occurred. As time passes, the chances increase that the seizable goods will no longer be at the particular location, and the information will be considered "stale." The statement of time must be reasonably definite but declarations that the observations were made "within" or "during" a named period of time have been approved.   Obviously, the best fact is a statement by a reliable eyewitness that the property is located within the constitutionally protected area. Confidential informants are the main sources of this sort of information; however, law enforcement officers acting undercover can provide the same service. Additionally, observations made from outside the protected area by an officer lawfully entitled to be at that place may be sufficient for this purpose.   EXAMPLE:   Officer standing on public sidewalk observes evidence of a crime in an automobile parked at a private residence.   "Anticipatory Search Warrant"   Law Enforcement officers are occasionally informed by commercial delivery service employees that certain packages contain drugs or contraband. This information is utilized to search and seize the package and have it delivered to the addressed premises, where the package is seized in the possession of the addressee. This is referred to as an "anticipatory search," which is defined as one based upon an affidavit showing probable cause that at some future time, but not presently, certain contraband will be at the location set forth in the warrant. The law is clear that such warrants are not constitutionally invalid for lack of a present violation of law at the premises where the contraband will be delivered in the future. No language in either the state or the federal constitution prohibits issuance of a warrant for service at a future time. The officer's affidavit must detail the criminal activity as well as the legality of any intervening search and field test for narcotics.   3. Use of Inferences   In the absence of personal observation of the articles sought, it still may be possible to obtain a search warrant and probable cause may be inferred from the existence of certain facts and circumstances.   It is interesting to note there is no Supreme Court decision directly on this point and most of the cases are fairly recent, having arisen primarily since the time of Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). The Chimel Case limited searches incident to arrest and indirectly emphasized the warrant requirement.   The following facts have been considered important in inferring probable cause to search:   a. Connection of place to be searched to defendant;   b. Connection of place to be searched to illegal activity;   c. Type of crime/nature of item sought;   d. Opportunity for concealment;   e. The most likely place a criminal would hide the property sought;   f. Experience and expertise of officer; and   g. Search is made under a warrant.   In summary, there is authority for searches based on inferences. If the officer has developed facts to indicate that the place to be searched is the most likely place for the evidence to be found, these facts should be clearly noted in the affidavit. An officer's experience as to where he has found such evidence in the past may be taken into consideration by a magistrate and should be detailed. Accumulation of evidence tying the suspect to the place to be searched and the goods to that location is important. Careful drafting of the affidavit cannot be overemphasized.   4. Source of Facts   All facts have sources. In the following subheading there are listed the most common source of facts used to establish probable cause in an affidavit. Sources are firsthand, witnessed by the officer or secondhand where the information is obtained from another party. Secondhand information is also known as hearsay.   a. Personal Knowledge           The facts to which an officer can testify are invaluable as elements of probable cause. "I saw…," "I heard…," "I found," illustrates the type of information within an officer's personal knowledge.           Firsthand knowledge of the officer may be highly relevant in establishing probable cause and is considered to be extremely competent proof of the facts asserted. Firsthand knowledge may consist of the following types of information:           Observations - Observations may include the direct observation of a crime or of evidence connected with a crime. Moreover, suspicious activities of a suspect, such as furtive conduct of flight, are also relevant.           Smell - Evidence gathered by the sense of smell can be considered on the issue of whether probable cause exists. Thus, probable cause to believe that marijuana is being, or has been, used can be established by an officer trained in detecting its odor.           Touch - Frequently the sense of touch may establish probable cause. For example, during the frisk of a suspect, the officer may develop probable cause to believe a weapon is on a person from the sense of touch.           Hearing - The sense of hearing may also establish probable cause for certain acts such as where an officer hears gunshots or a scream for assistance.           Knowledge of Suspect - Knowledge of the suspect's propensity to commit the crime under investigation is relevant.           Knowledge of Suspect's Associates - Evidence that a suspect is associating with people who have been previously convicted of the crime for which the suspect is under investigation is a relevant fact.           Knowledge of Area - An agent's knowledge of the reputation of the area in which he is dealing is a factor to be weighed. Hence, some facts might take on additional meaning simply because of the area in which they take place.           Time of Day - Frequently facts become suspicious because they occur at night rather than during the day. Thus, if an officer were to observe a person in a business district with a business machine in his hands at 2:00 in the morning, this would be more suspicious than if he were to see the same occurrence at 2:00 in the afternoon.           Physical Evidence - Physical evidence found during a crime scene search, such as latent fingerprints and other items of evidence, are factors to be taken into account in the probable cause analysis.           Suspect's Statements - Incriminating statements of a suspect are certainly relevant in a probable cause determination. In addition, false, conflicting, evasive, unresponsive answers, or even a failure to answer under circumstances where a reasonable person would answer (prior to Miranda rights being given), are factors to be considered.           Experience of Officer - Facts which appear innocuous to the layman may have specialized significance to the experienced officer. The law recognizes this and allows such information to be interpreted according to the context in which it is found by the law enforcement officer. Still the conclusions of the experienced officer are not enough. The officer must explain why his experience, based on similar investigations, makes that innocuous fact relevant to probable cause.   Rarely does the officer constitute the sole source or even the primary source of facts for probable cause. Usually the officer's information comes from a variety of other sources. Some of this information may be hearsay, but probable cause may be based on hearsay. The test is whether the totality of all the information is sufficient to make a reasonable belief that specific items of property will be found at the place to be searched.   b. Hearsay           Information of which the officer does not have firsthand knowledge is known as hearsay. For purposes of establishing probable cause, hearsay may be employed if it meets constitutional standards for use and the magistrate or judge is willing to accept it. The use of informants, whether they be a good citizen informant, anonymous tip, or confidential criminal informant, is an invaluable tool in law enforcement, as most crimes do not occur in the presence of officers. When the facts in the affidavit are based predominantly or entirely on hearsay, probable cause can only be found if the magistrate determines the hearsay information is trustworthy. (See page 21, "Totality of information test")   5. Types of Sources   a.         Identifiable Source - A distinction is made between classes of informants furnishing hearsay evidence. For example, there are informants who are identifiable as the source of information. Their names and occupations may be identified with the information furnished. Witnesses, victims, fellow officers, official records and custodians, are typical sources of such information. Example: "Mrs. Mary Smith, the teller who was robbed, told me…" illustrates the type of testimony or affidavit statement an officer may offer for information received from an identifiable source. Stating the name of the person from whom information is received and indicating their observations should be sufficient for the magistrate to determine whether that person should be considered a credible source. Nothing more is needed to include such information in an officer's statement of probable cause.   b.         Good Citizen Informant - Another category of source is the unidentified good-citizen informant. This type of informant is distinguished from a criminal informant who supplies information on a recurring basis for money or other personal gains. Officers relating information received from a citizen informant, whose identity must be kept confidential, should furnish facts by which the magistrate can conclude that the informant is, in fact, a citizen informant as distinguished from a criminal informant. The officer should show how he came in contact with the citizen, the fact that the source is a responsible adult, who has no criminal record and is employed and is not furnishing information for money. Also show why he desired to remain confidential.   c.         Anonymos Tip - Information from anonymous sources can also be considered. However, additional facts and circumstances (corroboration) must be obtained in order to establish probable cause. It was an anonymous tip that provided the basic information for a search warrant in Gates v. Illinois and prompted the Supreme Court to change the rules for using informant information in an affidavit. (See below, "Totality of Information Test")   d.         Confidential Criminal Informant - The so-called confidential criminal informant is viewed differently. He is part of the criminal element and is normally selling the information to law enforcement, seeking favorable treatment on pending charges, or furnishing such information in connection with favorable treatment in the past. He is not considered to be inherently trustworthy and it is desirable to enhance the credibility of information provided by him.   6. Totality of Information Test           In the case of Gates v. Illinois, 462 U.S. 732 (1983), the Supreme Court abandoned the rigid "two-pronged" test developed from Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1965) and Spinelli v. U.S., 393 U.S. 410 (1969), and replaced it with a more flexible "totality of information" test. This test permits the magistrate to consider all available hearsay information without any strict rules.           In short, the "totality of information" test does not require that the informant's "basis of knowledge" and "veracity" be independently established. Instead, they are just "relevant considerations in the totality of circumstances analysis that traditionally has guided probable cause determinations." The court in essence concluded that magistrates must be free from strict formulas in determining probable cause and be permitted to make a sound judgment based on all the facts of the case.   Quoting from the Gates Opinion:   The task of the issuing magistrate is simply 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.   Again in the Upton Case:   We rejected it (the two-pronged test) as hypertechnical and divorced from the factual and practical considerations of everyday life…           The responsibility of the law enforcement officer, when using informant information, is to obtain specific and detailed information and to verify and corroborate it with independent investigation. This will afford the magistrate the broadest and most flexible formula in making his determination of probable cause.   Brief mention of the "two-pronged test" is relevant here. Although no longer required, it may be useful to the officer in an attempt to enhance informant information by providing "some of the underlying circumstances" that make the source believable. The two prongs of this test are (1) the source basis of current knowledge, and (2) his reliability/credibility. In the Gates' Case, the Court commented on the "two-pronged test" as follows:   "…an informants' veracity, reliability and basis of knowledge are all highly relevant in determining the value of his report…they are not separate and independent requirements to be rigidly exacted in every case. …they should be understood simply as closely intertwined issues that may usefully illuminate the common sense practical question whether there is probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence is located in a particular place."   The following are examples of language that can be used for this purpose:   Source's Basis of Knowledge   The basis for the source's statements should be stated where possible. Conclusory statements, such as "Joe Smith robbed the bank," should be avoided. The language used should establish that the source speaks with firsthand knowledge or that he has obtained the information from someone whom has firsthand knowledge. Usually, this will take the form of the source stating "I saw Joe Smith rob the bank," or "Joe Smith told me he robbed the bank." The officer must be careful in his choice of words describing the source's basis of knowledge to prevent the subject from identifying the source.   EXAMPLE:   On July 10, 1986, affiant was advised by a confidential source that on July 8, 1986, (or within the past 3 days) source saw cocaine packaged for sale at 1209 Pickney Street, Spartanburg, S.C. Source further advised that "James Harper," whom he knows from previous contact to reside at this address, offered source the cocaine for purchase and told source it was in fact cocaine.   Source's Reliability - Credibility   The officer must set forth information to indicate the source has been reliable in the past. Rather than a mere statement the informant has provided "reliable information in the past" the better practice is to set forth information on the informant's specific past performance.   EXAMPLE:   Informant has, on five previous occasions since March 1, 1986, the last occasion being August 31, 1986, provided information…   a. Convictions "which has resulted in the location and arrest of two fugitives."   b. Located Fugitives "which has resulted in the location and arrest of two fugitives."   c. Recovery of Stolen Property "which has resulted in the recovery of nine stolen TV sets." (If detailed description of property could identify the informant consider using the terms, fruits, instrumentalities, contraband, etc.)   d. Criminal Activities "concerning the criminal activities of others which information was not available to the public, and which was confirmed as being true and accurate by independent investigation by this department, and was considered as material in the investigation to which the information pertained."   Conclude this paragraph with the following:   "Further details as to the specific cases involved would tend to disclose the informant's identity. The identity of this informant should be kept confidential because disclosure of informant's identity would impair his future usefulness to law enforcement and endanger his life."   If applicable the following sentence may be used:   "Informant has never provided information which proved to be incorrect."   7. Corroboration   Corroboration of informant information is absolutely necessary. The officer's own observations or reports from other reliable sources furnishing similar or complimentary information should be used. Information sufficiently corroborated may be taken as true.   EXAMPLE:   Informant advises that stolen TV sets will be unloaded at a warehouse located at 1314 Old Beaufort Rd., Hardeeville, S.C. on October 10, 1985. Officer maintains physical surveillance at this location and records unloading of 26 large cartons from rental truck between 3:50 a.m. and 4:20 a.m. on the morning of October 10, 1985.   If the officer's investigation determines the events occur more or less as predicted by the informant, corroboration has been established.   8. Appellate Review of Affidavits   Finally, the police officer should be aware of the principles announced by the Supreme Court as applicable to the review of affidavits by appellate courts. These principles may be summarized as follows   a. Affidavits for search warrants are to be tested and interpreted by reviewing courts "in a commonsense and realistic fashion;"   b. Deference is to be paid a magistrate's determination of probable cause, and reviewing courts are to sustain that determination in doubtful or marginal cases;   c. Only facts disclose to the magistrate at the time of application for the warrant may be considered in the assessment of probable cause for the warrant. Facts not made known to the magistrate cannot serve to support a warrant.   (U.S. vs. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965))   F. IDENTIFICATION OF AFFIANT   The affidavit must be given under oath. The signature and identification of the affiant are material parts of the application for a search warrant. The investigating officer does not have to be the affiant. Any officer having knowledge of the pertinent facts may file an affidavit. If more than one affidavit is to be submitted, each affiant must be identified and his information properly attributed.     G. CERTIFICATION AND SUBSCRIPTION BY ISSUING OFFICER   The issuing officer must certify that the affidavit was filed under oath and signed in his presence. This also constitutes a material part of the search warrant application procedure. S.C. Code § 17-13-140.