State v. McNeil

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Lawreen Donna
McNeil, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

 Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-704

Submitted December 1, 2008 – Filed
December 15, 2008   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant
Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert
Mills Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
Lawreen Donna McNeil appeals her conviction for trafficking marijuana and argues the trial court erred in admitting
drugs seized from her car into evidence. 
We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v.
Williams, 351 S.C. 591, 598, 571 S.E.2d 703, 707 (Ct. App. 2002) (stating when
probable cause exists to believe a traffic violation has occurred, the decision
to stop the automobile is reasonable per se); State v. Pichardo, 367
S.C. 84, 97-98, 623 S.E.2d 840, 847 (Ct. App. 2005) (holding the police may
stop and briefly detain a vehicle if they have a reasonable suspicion the
occupants are involved in criminal activity); U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696,
706-07 (1983) (holding an examination by a trained narcotics dog is not a
search and seizure but is considered a minor intrusion); Illinois v.
Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (holding once a drug dog alerts an officer of
possible contraband, probable cause exists to search the car); State v.
Weaver, 374 S.C. 313, 320, 649 S.E.2d 479, 482 (2007) (“Pursuant to the
automobile exception, if there is probable cause to search a vehicle, a warrant
is not necessary so long as the search is based on facts that would justify the
issuance of a warrant, even though a warrant has not been actually obtained.”). 
 

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS,
PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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