The State v. Brown, 4697.

Citation698 S.E.2d 811,389 S.C. 473
Decision Date14 June 2010
Docket NumberNo. 4697.,4697.
CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent,v.Danny Cortez BROWN, Appellant.

389 S.C. 473
698 S.E.2d 811

The STATE, Respondent,
v.
Danny Cortez BROWN, Appellant.

No. 4697.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard March 2, 2010.
Decided June 14, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 24, 2010.


698 S.E.2d 812

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

698 S.E.2d 813

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

698 S.E.2d 814
Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, Assistant Attorney General Suzanne H. White, all of Columbia; and John Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

SHORT, J.

Danny Brown was charged with trafficking cocaine. Following a jury trial, he was convicted and sentenced to twenty-five years incarceration. He appeals, arguing the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the drugs seized after his arrest for an open container violation. We reverse.

FACTS

Officer Daryl Williams was on patrol in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. While traveling down a road, he observed a 1976 Plymouth next to him and saw a passenger drinking what appeared to be a beer. The passenger, Brown, saw Officer Williams and tucked the beer can between his legs. Officer Williams pulled the car over and noticed a small duffel bag on the floorboard between Brown's legs. Officer Williams testified he was suspicious of the occupants because the driver acted nervous while Brown appeared “artificially laid back.”

Initially, Brown denied having a beer, but then he pulled the can up from his lap. Officer Williams removed Brown from the car, recovered the beer can, arrested him for an open container violation, and placed his duffel bag on the sidewalk. He handcuffed Brown and placed him in a patrol car. After securing Brown, Officer Williams returned to the car to make “small talk” with the driver. He returned to the duffel bag, searched it, and found cocaine concealed inside a Fritos bag. Officer Williams stated he closed the duffel bag and resumed conversation with the driver. He ran the driver's license, discovered it was suspended, and placed the driver under arrest for that offense.

During trial, Brown moved to suppress the drugs on a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding there was probable cause to stop the car, and Brown's arrest was lawful. The trial court held the search was proper because it was a search incident to a lawful arrest. Brown was found guilty and sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Fourth Amendment search and seizure case, we do not review the trial court's ultimate determination de novo, rather we apply a deferential standard. State v. Khingratsaiphon, 352 S.C. 62, 70, 572 S.E.2d 456, 459-60 (2002). This court reviews the trial court's ruling like any other factual finding, and we will reverse only if there is clear error. Id. Therefore, we will affirm if any evidence exists to support the trial court's ruling. Id.

LAW/ANALYSIS

On appeal Brown argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the drugs in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. We agree.

The Fourth Amendment provides, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated....” U.S. Const. amend. IV. Any evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961).

It is well established that warrantless searches and seizures by the police are per se unreasonable, unless they fall within one

698 S.E.2d 815
of several recognized exceptions State v. Weaver, 361 S.C. 73, 80-81, 602 S.E.2d 786, 790 (Ct.App.2004). These exceptions include: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) hot pursuit; (3) stop and frisk; (4) automobile exception; (5) plain view doctrine; (6) consent; and (7) abandonment Id. A. Search Incident to Arrest1

Under the search incident to arrest exception, if the arrest is supported by probable cause, police officers may search an arrestee's person and the area within his or her immediate control for weapons and destructible evidence without first obtaining a search warrant. State v. Ferrell, 274 S.C. 401, 405, 266 S.E.2d 869, 871 (1980). However, this doctrine does not allow law enforcement officers to conduct a warrantless search of an arrestee's automobile after the arrestee has been handcuffed or otherwise prevented from regaining access to the car, unless it is reasonable to believe (1) the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search, or (2) that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of the arrest. Arizona v. Gant, --- U.S. ----, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 1723-24, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009) (limiting New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981) and Thornton v. U.S., 541 U.S. 615, 124 S.Ct. 2127, 158 L.Ed.2d 905 (2004)).

The burden of establishing the existence of circumstances constituting an exception to the general prohibition against warrantless searches is upon the State. Weaver, 361 S.C. at 81, 602 S.E.2d at 790.

In the present case, neither of the exceptions stated in Gant apply. Officer Williams testified he had Brown exit the car to be handcuffed and arrested for the offense of open container. He took the duffel bag from the car, placed it on the sidewalk, and then put Brown in the back of his patrol car. After securing Brown, Officer Williams returned to the car and made “small talk” with the driver. He testified:

I wanted to deal with him later, but I just wanted to get a glance into the bag, so I did unzip the bag, and look in. It
was personal items like, perhaps deodorant, undergarments ... and there was a bag of Fritos potato chips, corn chips, whatever ... and it was open, so it was kind of crumpled shut, I believe, so I went and just opened it up to get a look into the bag, and then I seen inside that
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • State v. Jenkins, 4958.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 20, 2012
    ...evidence that the same evidence seized unlawfully would have been discovered inevitably by lawful means. See State v. Brown, 389 S.C. 473, 483, 698 S.E.2d 811, 816 (Ct.App.2010), cert. granted, (Dec. 15, 2011); see also Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 447, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (198......
  • State v. Bonilla, Appellate Case No. 2016-001725
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 31, 2019
    ...to probable cause." State v. Morris , 395 S.C. 600, 609–10, 720 S.E.2d 468, 472 (Ct. App. 2011) (quoting State v. Brown , 389 S.C. 473, 482, 698 S.E.2d 811, 816 (Ct. App. 2010), rev'd on other grounds , 401 S.C. at 82, 736 S.E.2d at 263 ). Probable cause exists where there is "a justifiable......
  • State v. Brown, 27202.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 24, 2013
    ...on the basis the search was improper under Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009). State v. Brown, 389 S.C. 473, 698 S.E.2d 811 (Ct.App.2010). This Court has granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. ......
  • State v. Jenkins, Opinion No. 4958
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 28, 2012
    ...evidence that the same evidence seized unlawfully would have been discovered inevitably by lawful means. See State v. Brown, 389 S.C. 473, 483, 698 S.E.2d 811, 816 (Ct. App. 2010), cert. granted, (Dec. 15, 2011); see also Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 447 (1984) (holding evidence may be ad......
  • 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