State v. Jackson

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: January 14, 2015
• Docket: 2015-UP-016
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Kenneth Odell Jackson, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-212700

Appeal From Spartanburg County Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-016 Submitted August 1, 2014 – Filed January 14, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Benjamin John Tripp, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General John Benjamin Aplin, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Morris, 395 S.C. 600, 606, 720 S.E.2d 468, 471 (Ct. App. 2011) ("When reviewing a Fourth Amendment search and seizure case, an appellate court must affirm if there is any evidence to support the ruling. The appellate court will reverse only when there is clear error." (emphasis added)); id. "[T]his deference does not bar this [c]ourt from conducting its own review of the record to determine whether the trial [court]'s decision is supported by the evidence." (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Tindall, 388 S.C. 518, 523 n.5, 698 S.E.2d 203, 206 n.5 (2010) (stating an appellate court "must ask first, whether the record supports the trial court's assumed findings . . . and second, whether these facts support a finding that that the officer had reasonable suspicion of a serious crime to justify continued detention of [the defendant]"); State v. Pichardo, 367 S.C. 84, 98, 623 S.E.2d 840, 847 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Once a motor vehicle is detained lawfully for a traffic violation, the police may order the driver to exit the vehicle without violating Fourth Amendment proscriptions on unreasonable searches and seizures."); Morris, 395 S.C. at 607, 720 S.E.2d at 471 (stating the officer may also request a driver's license and vehicle registration, run a computer check, and issue a citation); State v. Provet, 405 S.C. 101, 108, 747 S.E.2d 453, 457 (2013) ("A traffic stop supported by reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation remains valid until the purpose of the traffic stop has been completed."); id. at 115, 747 S.E.2d at 460 ("[O]ff-topic questioning does not constitute a separate seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes so long as it does not measurably extend the duration of a lawful traffic stop.").

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.