State v. Pope, No. 5261.
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | SHORT, J. |
| Citation | 410 S.C. 214,763 S.E.2d 814 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Roderick POPE, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2012–207226. |
| Decision Date | 20 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 5261. |
410 S.C. 214
763 S.E.2d 814
The STATE, Respondent
v.
Roderick POPE, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2012–207226.
No. 5261.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Heard June 2, 2014.
Decided Aug. 20, 2014.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 23, 2014.
Certiorari Denied Feb. 20, 2015.
Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of Columbia, for Respondent.
Opinion
SHORT, J.
Roderick Pope appeals his conviction for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. Pope argues the trial court erred in: (1) refusing to suppress the evidence seized during the search of the vehicle when law enforcement did not have reasonable suspicion to justify the traffic stop; (2) refusing to suppress the evidence seized during the search of the vehicle because law enforcement did not have probable cause to believe the vehicle contained evidence of criminal activity and no exigent circumstances existed to justify the warrantless search; and (3) finding a sufficient chain of custody existed to admit the evidence seized during the search of the vehicle and the drug evidence found in the police car. We affirm.
FACTS
Officers arrested Vincent Harris at approximately 3:30 p.m. on June 24, 2010, after he sold crack cocaine to a confidential
informant.1 In an attempt to get out of jail on bond, Harris agreed to arrange a drug transaction with his supplier, Pope.2 Harris called Pope to arrange a deal that same day for a half ounce of crack cocaine for six hundred dollars.3 Harris told Union County Sheriff's Sergeant James Johnson that Pope would be traveling on Highway 176 from Spartanburg into Union, and he would be driving a black Ford Expedition. Sergeant Johnson relayed the information about the deal and the vehicle to officers who set up at various locations along Highway 176. Harris called Pope to check on his location and told Sergeant Johnson that Pope had just passed the Lighthouse Fish Camp. Sergeant Johnson relayed Pope's location to the officers on the highway, and Captain James McNeil said he had a visual sighting on an Expedition at the Lighthouse Fish Camp. At approximately 6 p.m., Sheriff David Taylor saw the vehicle; he activated his blue lights; the Expedition pulled over; and Lieutenant John Sherfield and Captain McNeil pulled in behind the vehicles.
Three men were in the vehicle: Pope, Randy Crosby, and Lashad Brewton. Brewton was driving; Pope was in the front passenger seat; and Crosby was in the right rear seat. The vehicle was registered to Pope's wife, but Pope's license was suspended. Brewton stopped in the median instead of the right shoulder of the highway and took about a minute to pull over. As Lieutenant Sherfield approached the vehicle, he observed Crosby turn around, look back at him, bend down, and sit back up. After the officers removed the three men from the vehicle and handcuffed
them, Lieutenant Sherfield searched the vehicle. Underneath the seat where Crosby had been sitting, he found a digital scale with white residue. He tested the residue with a field test kit and determined it was cocaine. All three men were arrested for possession of cocaine. The officers did not find drugs on the men when they
searched them on the side of the road. However, Lieutenant Sherfield found two hundred eighty dollars and a cell phone on Brewton, and five hundred seventy dollars on Crosby. The officers also found a cell phone on Pope that had fourteen incoming calls and five outgoing calls on that day to a person listed as “Vince.” After arriving at the jail, Corporal Russell Vinson searched the vehicle he used to transport Brewton and Crosby.4 In the back, underneath the seat where Crosby had been seated, Corporal Vinson found a yellow plastic bag containing a little more than eleven grams of crack cocaine.
Pope was indicted for trafficking more than ten grams but less than twenty-eight grams of crack cocaine. The case proceeded to trial on December 6 through 8, 2011. The State tried Pope with his two co-defendants, Crosby and Brewton. The jury found Pope guilty of the lesser-included offense of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. The court sentenced him to fifteen years, suspended upon the service of ten years with five years' probation. The court denied Pope's motion to reconsider his sentence. This appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In criminal cases, this court sits to review errors of law only and is bound by the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. State v. Edwards, 384 S.C. 504, 508, 682 S.E.2d 820, 822 (2009). Thus, on review, this court is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the court's decision is unsupported by the evidence or controlled by an error of law. State v. Black, 400 S.C. 10, 16, 732 S.E.2d 880, 884 (2012). “This [c]ourt does not re-evaluate the facts based on its own view of the preponderance of the evidence but simply determines whether the trial court's ruling is supported by any evidence.” Edwards, 384 S.C. at 508, 682 S.E.2d at 822.
LAW/ANALYSIS
I. Reasonable Suspicion
Pope argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search of the vehicle
because law enforcement did not have reasonable suspicion to justify the traffic stop. We disagree.
In criminal cases, this court only reviews errors of law. State v. Butler, 353 S.C. 383, 388, 577 S.E.2d 498, 500 (Ct.App.2003). This standard of review also applies to preliminary factual findings in determining the admissibility of certain evidence. Id. In Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases, our review is limited to determining whether there is any evidence to support the trial court's finding. State v. Moore, 404 S.C. 634, 640–41, 746 S.E.2d 352, 355 (Ct.App.2013). This court will not reverse a trial court's findings of fact merely because we would have reached a different conclusion. Id.
“A police officer may stop and briefly detain and question a person for investigative purposes, without treading upon his Fourth Amendment rights, when the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts, short of probable cause for arrest, that the person is involved in criminal activity.” State v. Woodruff, 344 S.C. 537, 546, 544 S.E.2d 290, 295 (Ct.App.2001). “The term ‘reasonable suspicion’ requires a particularized and objective basis that would lead one to suspect another of criminal activity.”Id. In analyzing reasonable suspicion, “it is entirely appropriate for courts to credit the practical experience of officers who observe on a daily basis what transpires on the street.” State v. Wallace, 392 S.C. 47, 52, 707 S.E.2d 451, 453 (Ct.App.2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “In determining whether reasonable suspicion
exists, the whole picture must be considered.” Woodruff, 344 S.C. at 546, 544 S.E.2d at 295. “Factors that are alone consistent with ‘innocent travel’ can, when ‘taken together’ produce a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.” Wallace, 392 S.C. at 52, 707 S.E.2d at 453 (quoting United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 9, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) ). “In applying the concept of reasonable suspicion to the various facts of a case, ‘[i]t is the entire mosaic that counts, not single tiles.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Whitehead, 849 F.2d 849, 858 (4th Cir.1988) ).
Pre-trial, Pope moved to suppress the drugs seized during the search of the vehicle. During trial, Pope again moved to suppress the evidence, arguing no reasonable suspicion existed for the traffic stop, and law enforcement did not have probable
cause to search the vehicle. The State responded the corroboration between the information Harris gave Sergeant Johnson and the officers' observations gave them reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle.
The court denied the motion to suppress, stating, “I think the ice here is thin, but I think it's thick enough to support the arrest, the stop first, then the search and then the arrest, and they went in that order.” The court determined Harris was not a confidential informant, but he was “somewhere between [a] confidential informant and [an] anonymous tip[ster].” The court found law enforcement had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle:
[L]ooking at the totality of the circumstances, ... it was a police investigation that determined the validity of the information they received from [Harris].... Not a lot of information, that's true, but enough, I think, to establish probable cause to make the stop, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pradubsri, Opinion No. 5499.
...recently, in State v. Pope , an informant facing a drug charge arranged a drug sale with the defendant in exchange for a bond reduction. 410 S.C. 214, 219–20, 763 S.E.2d 814, 817 (Ct. App. 2014). The informant described the make, model, and color of Pope's vehicle, as well as the highway an......
-
State v. Brewton, Appellate Case No. 2014-000880
...verdict of acquittal. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:1. As to issues 1 through 3: State v. Pope, 410 S.C. 214, 225-29, 763 S.E.2d 814, 820-22 (Ct. App. 2014) (holding in the appeal of Brewton's co-defendant, the trial court did not err in: (1) denyin......
-
State v. Brewton, 2016-UP-222
...verdict of acquittal. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. As to issues 1 through 3: State v. Pope, 410 S.C. 214, 225-29, 763 S.E.2d 814, 820-22 (Ct. App. 2014) (holding in the appeal of Brewton's co-defendant, the trial court did not err in: (1) denyi......
-
In re Jackson
...including, but not limited to, making any 410 S.C. 162withdrawal or transfer, or writing any check or other instrument on the account(s).763 S.E.2d 814IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Lumpkin is hereby appointed to assume responsibility for respondent's client files, trust account(s), escrow ......
-
State v. Pradubsri, Opinion No. 5499.
...recently, in State v. Pope , an informant facing a drug charge arranged a drug sale with the defendant in exchange for a bond reduction. 410 S.C. 214, 219–20, 763 S.E.2d 814, 817 (Ct. App. 2014). The informant described the make, model, and color of Pope's vehicle, as well as the highway an......
-
State v. Brewton, Appellate Case No. 2014-000880
...verdict of acquittal. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:1. As to issues 1 through 3: State v. Pope, 410 S.C. 214, 225-29, 763 S.E.2d 814, 820-22 (Ct. App. 2014) (holding in the appeal of Brewton's co-defendant, the trial court did not err in: (1) denyin......
-
State v. Brewton, 2016-UP-222
...verdict of acquittal. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. As to issues 1 through 3: State v. Pope, 410 S.C. 214, 225-29, 763 S.E.2d 814, 820-22 (Ct. App. 2014) (holding in the appeal of Brewton's co-defendant, the trial court did not err in: (1) denyi......
-
In re Jackson
...including, but not limited to, making any 410 S.C. 162withdrawal or transfer, or writing any check or other instrument on the account(s).763 S.E.2d 814IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Lumpkin is hereby appointed to assume responsibility for respondent's client files, trust account(s), escrow ......