State v. Anderson, Appellate Case No. 2014–001968.
Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
Writing for the Court | Justice HEARN. |
Citation | 415 S.C. 441,783 S.E.2d 51 |
Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Donald Marquice ANDERSON, Petitioner. |
Decision Date | 02 March 2016 |
Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 2014–001968.,No. 27609. |
415 S.C. 441
783 S.E.2d 51
The STATE, Respondent,
v.
Donald Marquice ANDERSON, Petitioner.
Appellate Case No. 2014–001968.
No. 27609.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard Oct. 7, 2015.
Decided March 2, 2016.
Carmen V. Ganjehsani, of Richardson, Plowden & Robinson, PA, and Appellate Defender, Laura Ruth Baer, both of Columbia, for petitioner.
Attorney General, Alan M. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Mary W. Leddon, and Assistant Attorney General, Susannah Rawl Cole, all of Columbia, and W. Walter Wilkins, III, of Greenville, all for respondent.
Justice HEARN.
Donald Marquice Anderson was walking in the vicinity of a drug raid when police officers located in the periphery of the search ordered him to the ground. Upon searching him, officers found crack cocaine, and Anderson was thereafter indicted for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine.
He moved to suppress the drugs, arguing the detention and subsequent pat-down were unlawful under the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied his motion to suppress and, following a bench trial, found Anderson guilty as charged. The court of appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion, finding the police had both reasonable suspicion to detain him and reasonable belief he was armed and dangerous to justify the pat-down. State v. Anderson, Op. No. 2014–UP–282, 2014 WL 3369050 (S.C.Ct.App. filed July 9, 2014). We reverse.
FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Detective Keith Cothran of the Greenville Police Department obtained a no-knock search warrant for a house on Dobbs Street (the Dobbs house). The warrant was founded on surveillance and observations by officers of drug activity in the home and in the surrounding area, including a successful purchase of crack cocaine by a confidential informant. During surveillance, officers learned that runners used a footpath to ferry drugs from the Dobbs house to interested buyers on Sullivan Street. Nevertheless, the search warrant included only the Dobbs house and its curtilage; the warrant did not include the footpath.
As a part of the effort in executing the search warrant, Detective Cothran instructed officers in the vice and narcotics unit of the Greenville SWAT team, including Detectives Kevin Hyatt and Gary Rhinehart, to secure and detain any person found on the footpath because the police department knew the footpath was being used to transport drugs.1 The two detectives were located near the Dobbs house portion of the footpath and others were stationed at the end of the footpath by Sullivan Street.
During the execution of the search warrant, Detective Hyatt observed Anderson and a woman halfway down the footpath walking toward Sullivan Street away from Dobbs Street. Detective Hyatt and Detective Rhinehart were stationed behind Anderson and began walking towards him. When Anderson saw the officers at the Sullivan end of the footpath, he turned around and observed the other two detectives.
Anderson and the woman then "veered to the right in a quick manner" off the footpath.
Detective Hyatt drew his weapon and ran towards Anderson advising him to stop and get on the ground. Anderson immediately complied and was handcuffed. When Anderson stood up again, Detective Hyatt completed a pat-down of Anderson's outer clothing for safety reasons. In Anderson's front right pocket, Detective Hyatt felt a plastic bag and hard objects, which later tested positive for crack cocaine.
Anderson moved to suppress the crack cocaine found in his pocket on two grounds. First, he alleged the drugs were not found as part of a Terry2 stop, but pursuant to a warrant executed for Dobbs Street and its curtilage. Therefore, Anderson was outside the bounds of the warrant. Second, even if it was a Terry stop, it was improper because there was no reasonable suspicion to stop him and there was no reasonable suspicion that he was armed. Detectives Cothran, Hyatt, Rhinehart, Brown, and Gault testified at the hearing. The trial court denied the motion, relying on State v. Taylor, 401 S.C. 104, 113, 736 S.E.2d 663, 667 (2013), finding this was a Terry stop and articulable reasons were elicited from testimony to show there was reasonable suspicion to stop and complete a pat-down pursuant to Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993).3 During the trial,
Anderson renewed his objection to the introduction of the crack cocaine. The State adduced no evidence connecting Anderson or the drugs found on him to the house on Dobbs Street.
Anderson testified in his own defense. He stated he was at his aunt's house hanging out on top of her car when he heard a "big boom," and believing it was a shooting, he thought he needed to get away. As he was reacting from the "big boom," he saw the police and believed he was safe. He further testified he continued to move once he saw the police because there was a kerosene tank in his aunt's backyard and he worried if shots hit it, the tank might explode. He testified "I did not step foot in the [footpath], but I kind of moved towards the front, the front yard, so I can, you know what I'm saying, be clear of that gas jar."
The trial court ultimately found Anderson guilty as charged, and sentenced him to imprisonment for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Quinn, Appellate Case No. 2018-000494
...bias to merit her recusal on appeal?STANDARD OF REVIEW In criminal cases, this Court reviews only errors of law. State v. Anderson , 415 S.C. 441, 446, 783 S.E.2d 51, 54 (2016). Thus, the trial court's factual findings are binding on the Court unless unsupported by the evidence, clearly err......
-
State v. Spears, Appellate Case No. 2015-000390
...under the Fourth Amendment. We agree."The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures." State v. Anderson , 415 S.C. 441, 447, 783 S.E.2d 51, 54 (2016) (citing U.S. Const. amend. IV ). "The security and protection of persons and property provided by 420 S.C.......
-
Furr v. Horry Cnty. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, Appellate Case No. 2015–000271.
...petitioners.Leah Montgomery Cromer and Emma Ruth Brittain, both of Thomas & Brittain, P.A., of Myrtle Beach, for respondent.PER CURIAM.415 S.C. 441We granted certiorari to review the court of appeals' opinion in Furr v. Horry Cnty. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 411 S.C. 178, 767 S.E.2d 221 (Ct......
-
State v. Quinn, Appellate Case No. 2018-000494
...bias to merit her recusal on appeal?STANDARD OF REVIEW In criminal cases, this Court reviews only errors of law. State v. Anderson , 415 S.C. 441, 446, 783 S.E.2d 51, 54 (2016). Thus, the trial court's factual findings are binding on the Court unless unsupported by the evidence, clearly err......
-
State v. Spears, Appellate Case No. 2015-000390
...was seized under the Fourth Amendment. We agree."The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures." State v. Anderson , 415 S.C. 441, 447, 783 S.E.2d 51, 54 (2016) (citing U.S. Const. amend. IV ). "The security and protection of persons and property provided by 420 S.C. 370......
-
Furr v. Horry Cnty. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, Appellate Case No. 2015–000271.
...for petitioners.Leah Montgomery Cromer and Emma Ruth Brittain, both of Thomas & Brittain, P.A., of Myrtle Beach, for respondent.PER CURIAM.415 S.C. 441We granted certiorari to review the court of appeals' opinion in Furr v. Horry Cnty. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 411 S.C. 178, 767 S.E.2d 221 (Ct......