State v. Flowers, No. 3828.

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtHOWARD, J.
Citation598 S.E.2d 725,360 S.C. 1
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Damico S. FLOWERS, Appellant.
Decision Date21 June 2004
Docket NumberNo. 3828.

360 S.C. 1
598 S.E.2d 725

The STATE, Respondent,
v.
Damico S. FLOWERS, Appellant

No. 3828.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Submitted March 19, 2004.

Decided June 21, 2004.


360 S.C. 3
Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General W. Rutledge Martin, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Ralph E. Hoisington, of Charleston, for Respondent.

HOWARD, J.:

Damico S. Flowers appeals his convictions for trafficking in cocaine; possession with intent to distribute cocaine near a school, park or playground; trafficking in crack cocaine; possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine near a school, park or playground; possession of marijuana with intent to distribute; possession of marijuana near a school, park or playground; possession of a pistol by a person under twenty-one years of age; and possession of a pistol during the commission of a violent crime. He argues the circuit court erred by admitting evidence obtained pursuant to a warrantless search of his girlfriend's residence, when he had previously denied officers' request to enter the residence. We affirm.1

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 14, 2001, Officer Phillip Kirkland and Sergeant Delmar Johnson went to 1918 Graham Street to investigate a complaint of drug activity and shots being fired in the yard. The officers knocked on the door and identified themselves as police. A male voice from inside the home told the officers to come in. As they stepped into the entryway of the home,

360 S.C. 4
Flowers jumped up and told the officers to step back outside onto the porch. The officers complied and Flowers followed them out, closing the door behind him. Flowers told the officers he did not own the residence but the owner would be returning soon

Shortly thereafter, the owner of the residence, Latonya Simmons, arrived in her vehicle. Sergeant Johnson approached Simmons while Officer Kirkland remained with Flowers. According to Sergeant Johnson, he asked Simmons if any drugs were in the residence, and she indicated there were. Sergeant Johnson then asked Simmons if he could search the house. With Simmons' consent, Sergeant Johnson and Simmons entered the residence.

Inside the home, Sergeant Johnson saw bags of marijuana and crack cocaine lying on a speaker in plain view. Additionally, he saw a gun lying on a nearby table. Both Simmons and Flowers were taken into custody. Simmons then signed a consent to search form. A further search of the residence revealed more illegal drugs. Subsequently, Flowers confessed that all of the contraband belonged to him.

At trial, Flowers moved to suppress the drug evidence, arguing it was obtained pursuant to a warrantless search of his girlfriend's residence over his objections. Flowers claimed he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the residence, requiring the officers to heed his refusal to allow a search, notwithstanding Simmons' later consent. The circuit court denied the motion, finding although Flowers had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the residence, his statements to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • State v. Pichardo, No. 4036.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 31, 2005
    ...a violation of the Fourth Amendment and is inadmissible at trial. State v. Nelson, 336 S.C. 186, 519 S.E.2d 786 (1999); State v. Flowers, 360 S.C. 1, 598 S.E.2d 725 (Ct.App.2004). The trial court, therefore, did not err in suppressing the evidence. See State v. Copeland, 321 S.C. 318, 323, ......
  • State v. Robinson, No. 27463.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 12, 2014
    ...6, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990) ; State v. Missouri, 361 S.C. 107, 110, 115, 603 S.E.2d 594, 595, 597 (2004) ; State v. Flowers, 360 S.C. 1, 6, 598 S.E.2d 725, 728 (Ct.App.2004).8 Olson, 495 U.S. at 97 n. 6, 110 S.Ct. 1684 ; Missouri, 361 S.C. at 110, 115, 603 S.E.2d at 595, 597 ; ......
  • State v. Robinson, No. 4942.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 29, 2012
    ...of privacy exists in property being searched when the defendant has a relationship with the property or property owner.” State v. Flowers, 360 S.C. 1, 5, 598 S.E.2d 725, 728 (Ct.App.2004). While an overnight guest may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the host's property, “a perso......
  • State v. Robinson
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 15, 2012
    ...of privacy exists in property being searched when the defendant has a relationship with the property or property owner." State v. Flowers, 360 S.C. 1, 5, 598 S.E.2d 725, 728 (Ct. App. 2004). While an overnight guest may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the host's property, "a per......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • State v. Pichardo, No. 4036.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 31, 2005
    ...a violation of the Fourth Amendment and is inadmissible at trial. State v. Nelson, 336 S.C. 186, 519 S.E.2d 786 (1999); State v. Flowers, 360 S.C. 1, 598 S.E.2d 725 (Ct.App.2004). The trial court, therefore, did not err in suppressing the evidence. See State v. Copeland, 321 S.C. 318, 323, ......
  • State v. Robinson, No. 27463.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 12, 2014
    ...6, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990) ; State v. Missouri, 361 S.C. 107, 110, 115, 603 S.E.2d 594, 595, 597 (2004) ; State v. Flowers, 360 S.C. 1, 6, 598 S.E.2d 725, 728 (Ct.App.2004).8 Olson, 495 U.S. at 97 n. 6, 110 S.Ct. 1684 ; Missouri, 361 S.C. at 110, 115, 603 S.E.2d at 595, 597 ; ......
  • State v. Robinson, No. 4942.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 29, 2012
    ...of privacy exists in property being searched when the defendant has a relationship with the property or property owner.” State v. Flowers, 360 S.C. 1, 5, 598 S.E.2d 725, 728 (Ct.App.2004). While an overnight guest may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the host's property, “a perso......
  • State v. Robinson
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 15, 2012
    ...of privacy exists in property being searched when the defendant has a relationship with the property or property owner." State v. Flowers, 360 S.C. 1, 5, 598 S.E.2d 725, 728 (Ct. App. 2004). While an overnight guest may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the host's property, "a per......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT