State v. Spears
Decision Date | 12 February 2020 |
Docket Number | Opinion No. 27945,Appellate Case No. 2017-001933 |
Citation | 839 S.E.2d 450,429 S.C. 422 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | The STATE, Petitioner, v. Eric Terrell SPEARS, Respondent. |
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Senior Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, and Interim Solicitor Heather Savitz Weiss, all of Columbia, for Petitioner.
Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Respondent.
Eric Terrell Spears was indicted for trafficking crack cocaine between ten and twenty-eight grams. Spears moved to suppress the evidence of the drugs seized from his person on the ground he was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and Spears was convicted as charged. The trial court sentenced Spears to thirty years in prison. A divided court of appeals reversed Spears' conviction. State v. Spears , 420 S.C. 363, 802 S.E.2d 803 (Ct. App. 2017). We granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision. We now reverse the court of appeals and uphold Spears' conviction. We hold there is evidence in the record to support the trial court's finding that Spears engaged in a consensual encounter with law enforcement and that Spears' subsequent actions created a reasonable suspicion that he may have been armed and dangerous—justifying law enforcement's Terry1 frisk that led to the discovery of the offending crack cocaine in Spears' pants.
Law enforcement officers from Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and the Lexington and Richland County Sheriffs' Offices were investigating a tip that two black males (Tyrone Richardson and Eric Bradley) were transporting drugs into South Carolina via one of the "Chinese bus lines." These bus lines depart from the Chinatown district in New York City, dropping off passengers in major cities along the East Coast. Because of the lack of security measures and required identification, these buses are frequently exploited by wanted criminals and people trafficking in narcotics and counterfeit merchandise. There are no traditional bus stations for the "Chinese bus line"; the buses usually stop at a couple of different locations in Columbia to allow passengers to disembark.
On March 29, 2012, Agents Dennis Tracy, Briton Lorenzen, and Frank Finch were dispatched, pursuant to the tip, to conduct surveillance at one of the bus stops. As the passengers were exiting the bus, most of the passengers were being greeted by relatives or friends, being picked up by cabs, or talking on the phone (presumably making arrangements to be picked up). However, the agents observed a man and a woman with four large suitcases who "stuck out" because "they were paying an excess amount of attention" to the plain-clothed agents. A few minutes later, the man and woman began walking down the road away from the agents. The agents followed, and while walking briskly behind the man and woman to catch up with them, the agents observed the woman remove an unknown object from her purse and pass it to the man. When the agents were approximately ten feet from the couple, they asked the couple to stop and speak with them. The couple complied and engaged the agents in a conversation. The man was identified as Spears. As they spoke, Spears kept placing his hands inside his untucked shirt near his waistband. Fearing Spears might have a weapon, Agent Tracy repeatedly asked Spears to stop. Spears persisted in this movement, so Agent Tracy frisked Spears for safety reasons.
During the frisk, Agent Tracy felt a small, hard object about the size of a golf ball with jagged edges tucked into Spears' waistband. Based on his training and experience, Agent Tracy believed the object was crack cocaine, and he removed it from Spears' pants. The object field-tested positive for crack cocaine, and Spears was arrested. Spears told law enforcement he was paid to bring the crack cocaine from New York to South Carolina because of the drug's higher street value in South Carolina. Spears admitted he did so out of "stupidity" and because he needed the money.
Spears was indicted for trafficking crack cocaine more than ten grams and less than twenty-eight grams. Prior to trial, Spears moved to suppress the drug evidence. Spears argued he was seized by the agents in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Specifically, he contended a seizure occurred because a reasonable person would not have felt free to walk away from the initial encounter. Spears also contended the agents did not have a reasonable suspicion to stop him. The State argued the encounter between the couple and the agents was consensual and the agents therefore did not need a reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop. The State contended Agent Tracy properly frisked Spears for safety reasons.
Agent Tracy, a nineteen-year law enforcement veteran with ten years' experience in narcotics and certified in the field of narcotics interdiction, testified during the suppression hearing. Agent Tracy testified that on the day of the incident, he and Agents Lorenzen and Finch were dressed in plain clothes and were observing passengers disembarking a bus in a parking lot near I-20. Agent Tracy testified he was carrying a concealed handgun.2 He testified most of the passengers did not appear suspicious; however, he noted Spears and a woman appeared nervous and "kept looking at us and talking amongst themselves." Agent Tracy testified as to why the agents wanted to make contact with the couple:
The reason ... was to first of all identify them, and second of all to ascertain if they were involved in any criminal activity, specifically under our ICE authority it would be trafficking counterfeit goods. They have four large bags coming out of a known source area for counterfeit goods, we thought that might be something we wanted to take a look at.
Agent Tracy conceded the agents wanted to make contact with the couple solely based on their activity and not based on the original narcotics tip. Agent Tracy testified Spears and the woman began walking down the street towards the post office and that the woman appeared to reach into her bag and pass an unknown item to Spears. Agent Tracy testified that because Spears never lifted his hands above his waist, the agents believed the object would be in Spears' hands, waistband, or pockets.
Agent Tracy testified Spears and the woman continued to look back at the agents as they were walking away and that when the agents got close enough to Spears and the woman, he requested to speak with the couple. Agent Tracy testified he said something "nonthreatening" such as, "Excuse us, do you mind if we have a word with you?" Agent Tracy testified the couple complied. Agent Tracy described how the agents caught up with the couple: Agent Tracy testified Spears and the woman were not handcuffed and would have been free to walk away if they had initially refused to speak to the agents. Agent Tracy testified:
We identified ourselves, made small talk with them about their travel itinerary, asked them how the bus ride was, if they got any bad weather[.] ... We then asked them if they had -- or we told them the bus lines, that we had problems in the past with drugs and wanted subjects and counterfeit merchandise, and we asked them for ID.
Spears handed the agents his ID. However, the record does not reflect whether the agents retained his ID or gave it back to him. Agent Tracy testified Spears' answers about the trip were "very forthcoming"; however, when he asked Spears whether he had any illegal weapons, Spears hesitated before answering "no." Agent Tracy testified that based on his training in narcotics interdiction, people traditionally hesitate when they are confronted with a question they do not want to answer truthfully.
Agent Tracy testified about Spears' subsequent behavior, which is of particular importance to the issues on appeal:
I noted that while I was speaking with [Spears,] he continued to put his hands underneath his shirt and I guess the motion would be like puff his shirt away from his waistband. ... I asked him to keep his hands where I could see them ... because I didn't know what if he was reaching in his pockets. He did it a couple more times, and I kept reminding him to cease putting his hands in his pockets ... for officer safety regards[.] ... So he continued to get frustrated, or he continued to put his hands in his pockets or pulled his shirt out, and I told him I was going to conduct a pat down of him so I could be sure he didn't have any weapons on him or anything that was going to hurt me.
Agent Tracy testified he frisked Spears for his and the other agents' safety. He testified it was during the frisk in which he discovered the crack cocaine and a small amount of marijuana.
Traci Jenkins (referred to as Traci Williams by the court of appeals), the woman with Spears at the time of the incident, also testified at the suppression hearing. She testified Spears was her boyfriend at the time of the incident. Jenkins testified she and Spears were waiting on a ride when they first disembarked the bus but decided to walk when the ride was taking too long to arrive. Jenkins testified she and Spears were told by the agents to "stop." She testified the encounter lasted probably less than twenty minutes and that she did not believe she was free to walk away. Jenkins testified she was told by the agents to sit down; however, she recalled that particular instruction was likely given to her after Spears was searched and handcuffed. She was unsure as to whether the agents' guns were visible. Spears did not testify at the suppression hearing.
The trial court denied Spears' motion to suppress the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Frasier
..."will not reverse a trial court's finding of fact simply because it would have decided the case differently." State v. Spears , 429 S.C. 422, 433, 839 S.E.2d 450, 455 (2020) (quoting State v. Pichardo , 367 S.C. 84, 96, 623 S.E.2d 840, 846 (Ct. App. 2005) ). In State v. Brockman , 339 S.C. ......
-
State v. Sum
...is irrelevant to our seizure analysis because there is no similar evidence in the record here. See id. at 23 (citing State v. Spears , 429 S.C. 422, 444, 839 S.E.2d 450, cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 859, 208 L.Ed.2d 429 (2020) ). We decline the State's invitation to presume that......
-
Aiken v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue
... ... (B), a claim or action for the refund of taxes may not be brought as a class action in the Administrative Law Court or any court of law in this State, and the department, political subdivisions, or their instrumentalities may not be named or made a defendant in any other class action brought in ... ...
-
State v. Cyrus
...a factor and then declining to "decide here whether the race of a defendant properly informs the seizure inquiry"); State v. Spears, 429 S.C. 422, 839 S.E.2d 450, 461 (2020) ("We need not consider whether Spears’ race is a factor to be considered when resolving the issue of whether the enco......