State v. Parker

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.

Orlando Parker, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-194990

Appeal From Greenville County
Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-180
Heard April 9, 2013 – Filed May 8, 2013

AFFIRMED

J. Falkner Wilkes, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, both of Columbia,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Orlando Parker appeals his conviction for trafficking in cocaine.
We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439-40 (1984) (noting "the usual traffic stop
is more analogous to a so-called 'Terry1 stop' . . . than to a formal arrest" and
stating "the similarly noncoercive aspect of ordinary traffic stops prompts us to
hold that persons temporarily detained pursuant to such stops are not 'in custody'
for the purposes of Miranda"2), quoted in State v. Corley, 383 S.C. 232, 243-44,
679 S.E.2d 187, 193 (Ct. App. 2009); United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 825
(1982) ("If probable cause justifies the [warrantless] search of a lawfully stopped
vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may
conceal the object of the search."), quoted in State v. Morris, 395 S.C. 600, 610,
720 S.E.2d 468, 472-73 (Ct. App. 2011); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133-34
(1978) ("'Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which, like some other
constitutional rights, may not be vicariously asserted.'") (quoting Alderman v.
United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174 (1969)); State v. Lane, 271 S.C. 68, 71-72, 245
S.E.2d 114, 116 (1978) (finding the odor emanating from a package was a
sufficient basis to establish probable cause for its search and seizure and further
explaining that "an officer of the law, familiar with the odor of marijuana, believed
the odor being emitted was that of marijuana"); State v. Morris, 395 S.C. 600, 608,
720 S.E.2d 468, 471-72 (Ct. App. 2011) (affirming the trial court's determination
that reasonable suspicion existed to extend the duration and scope of a traffic stop
for "a reasonable investigation of drug activity" based on testimony by a police
officer that he smelled marijuana as he approached the rental car the defendant was
driving and learned the defendant was not an authorized driver when he requested
the defendant's license and registration); State v. Porter, 389 S.C. 27, 37, 698
S.E.2d 237, 242 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The general rule of issue preservation is if an
issue was not raised to and ruled upon by the trial court, it will not be considered
for the first time on appeal."). Our decision to affirm Parker's conviction obviates
a decision on the State's argument that if we were to find any of the issues Parker
has raised on appeal have merit, the matter should be remanded to the trial court
for a determination of whether an inventory search would have resulted in the
inevitable discovery of the contraband that Parker sought to exclude at trial. See
State v. Rivera, Op. No. 27220 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Feb. 13, 2013) (Shearouse Adv.
Sh. No. 7 at 43, 65) (declining to reach certain issues because the resolution of a
prior issue on appeal was dispositive of the appeal).

1
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
2
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.