State v. Khingratsaiphon, No. 25554.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Citation572 S.E.2d 456,352 S.C. 62
Docket NumberNo. 25554.
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Ae KHINGRATSAIPHON, Petitioner.
Decision Date12 November 2002

352 S.C. 62
572 S.E.2d 456

The STATE, Respondent,
v.
Ae KHINGRATSAIPHON, Petitioner

No. 25554.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard October 9, 2002.

Decided November 12, 2002.


352 S.C. 65
Chief Attorney Daniel T. Stacey, of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for petitioner

Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General Tracey Colton Green, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Barbara R. Morgan, of Aiken, for respondent.

Justice BURNETT:

We granted a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision affirming petitioner's direct appeal.1 State v. Khingratsaiphon, Op. No.2001-UP-052 (S.C. Ct.App. Filed January 29, 2001). We affirm.

ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeals err by holding evidence supported the trial judge's determination the arresting officer had authority to frisk petitioner and, therefore, properly denied petitioner's motion to suppress?

FACTS

Petitioner argues the Court of Appeals erred by holding there was evidence which supported the trial judge's determination the arresting officer had authority to conduct a frisk. Specifically, he contends the trial judge incorrectly premised his ruling on a finding the arresting officer heard "gun" shouted prior to the frisk and, therefore, there was no evidence supporting the trial judge's ruling. We disagree.

352 S.C. 66
During the suppression hearing, the parties offered the following evidence. On June 23, 1997, between 9:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., an Aiken pawn shop was robbed and its owner was shot to death. South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) Agent Roger Sharpe testified, the morning following the crime, SLED agents conducted a roadblock next to the pawn shop. As a result of the roadblock, the agents determined a black Honda was parked in the pawn shop's lot on the morning of the crime. An Asian male was seen standing beside the vehicle

During the roadblock, Mr. Wilson who worked across the street from the pawn shop, volunteered that his relative, Curtis Kesl from Charlotte, North Carolina, had been in Aiken on the morning of the crime. Wilson was uneasy about Kesl. He stated, in the past, Kesl had driven a Honda.

Agent Sharpe spoke with other members of Kesl's family. According to Sharpe, they were also uneasy about Kesl as Kesl had been in trouble before.

Kesl's cousin, Terry Wilson, testified, two weeks before the pawn shop crime, an Asian male accompanied Kesl to Aiken. The men stayed with Wilson over the weekend. Previously, Kesl made a collect telephone call to Wilson. Telephone records revealed Kesl had called Wilson from a Charlotte location.

Later on the morning of the roadblock, officers located an abandoned black Honda and determined it had been stolen from Charlotte on the morning of the shooting. Agent Sharpe relayed the above information to authorities in North Carolina and asked if Kesl could be located through that telephone number.

North Carolina authorities determined the Charlotte telephone number provided by Ms. Wilson was registered to Oua Vang at 305 Jones Street, Unit 3.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Policeman G.C. Lyman testified on June 25, 1997, he was contacted by an agent with the State Bureau of Investigation in North Carolina and, among other information, was informed that an Asian had a possible connection to the shooting at the Aiken pawn shop. In addition,

352 S.C. 67
he knew Curtis Kesl, a white male, was possibly connected with the case

On the same day, Lyman and two other officers proceeded to Vang's apartment. Three Asian males were standing outside. Each were wearing warm clothing in spite of the hot, humid weather. Lyman stated they wore baggy, solid blue clothing with long sleeves and bandanas around their necks, clothing which was consistent with gang attire. Lyman observed the name of a Hmong gang scrawled on a wall facing the apartment.

Lyman stated the officers asked who lived in the apartment; all three indicated they did not live there.2 According to Lyman, "somebody muttered something about somebody's relative, but it was not very clear and they were not very responsive." The officers then asked the three men for identification. Petitioner walked into the apartment, stating his identification was inside. Lyman testified that, had he had time to respond to petitioner, he would have requested petitioner not go inside; he was concerned both that his baggy clothing could be concealing a weapon and that there could be a weapon inside the apartment.

Lyman followed petitioner inside the apartment; he saw a white male and an Asian male in the living room/kitchen. He then followed petitioner up the stairs. Petitioner looked toward one bedroom then went into another bedroom, reached behind a curtain, and retrieved a wallet. Without opening the wallet, he stated it was not his and replaced it. At that point, petitioner started to open the closet. Because he did not want him to go into the closet for fear petitioner could obtain a weapon, Lyman testified he told petitioner he did not need identification and to return outside....

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 practice notes
  • The State v. Taylor, No. 4687.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 13, 2010
    ...must observe when reviewing a trial judge's finding as to whether a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred. See State v. Khingratsaiphon, 352 S.C. 62, 69-70, 572 S.E.2d 456, 459-60 (2002) (adhering to the deferential standard of review, but stating that Brockman “does not hold the appellat......
  • State v. Spears, Appellate Case No. 2017-001933
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 12, 2020
    ...searches and seizures. Evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded from trial." State v. Khingratsaiphon , 352 S.C. 62, 69, 572 S.E.2d 456, 459 (2002). The Fourth Amendment guarantee "protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, including seizures that invo......
  • State v. Williams, Opinion No. 5405
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 25, 2016
    ...exists, “the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture—” must be considered. Id. at 417 [101 S.Ct. 690].State v. Khingratsaiphon , 352 S.C. 62, 69, 572 S.E.2d 456, 459 (2002). “Under the United States Supreme Court's definition of reasonable suspicion, the facts and inferences relied ......
  • State v. Adams, No. 27445.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 10, 2014
    ...will reverse if there is clear error.” State v. Tindall, 388 S.C. 518, 521, 698 S.E.2d 203, 205 (2010) (citing State v. Khingratsaiphon, 352 S.C. 62, 70, 572 S.E.2d 456, 459 (2002) ). However, this Court reviews questions of law de novo. State v. Whitner, 399 S.C. 547, 552, 732 S.E.2d 861, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
47 cases
  • The State v. Taylor, No. 4687.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 13, 2010
    ...must observe when reviewing a trial judge's finding as to whether a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred. See State v. Khingratsaiphon, 352 S.C. 62, 69-70, 572 S.E.2d 456, 459-60 (2002) (adhering to the deferential standard of review, but stating that Brockman “does not hold the appellat......
  • In re D.D., 27, Sept. Term, 2021
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • June 21, 2022
    ...reasonable suspicion by a reasonable and cautious police officer guided by experience and training"); see also State v. Khingratsaiphon, 352 S.C. 62, 572 S.E.2d 456, 460 (2002) (among other circumstances justifying a frisk for weapons was the fact that "Petitioner and the two other men were......
  • State v. Spears, Appellate Case No. 2017-001933
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 12, 2020
    ...searches and seizures. Evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded from trial." State v. Khingratsaiphon , 352 S.C. 62, 69, 572 S.E.2d 456, 459 (2002). The Fourth Amendment guarantee "protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, including seizures that invo......
  • State v. Williams, Opinion No. 5405
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 25, 2016
    ...exists, “the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture—” must be considered. Id. at 417 [101 S.Ct. 690].State v. Khingratsaiphon , 352 S.C. 62, 69, 572 S.E.2d 456, 459 (2002). “Under the United States Supreme Court's definition of reasonable suspicion, the facts and inferences relied ......
  • 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