State v. Brown

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.

Theodore L. Brown, III,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Clarendon County

Howard P. King, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-201

Heard March 11, 2004 – Filed March 24,
2004

AFFIRMED

Steven Smith McKenzie, of Manning, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson,
Assistant Attorney General W. Rutledge Martin, all of Columbia; and Solicitor
Cecil Kelley Jackson, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Theodore L. Brown, III was
convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute after police
discovered the drugs during a traffic stop.  Brown appeals, contending the drugs
were found after the completion of the original stop and thus pursuant to an
illegal detention under State v. Williams, 351 S.C. 591, 571 S.E.2d 703
(Ct. App. 2002), cert. denied (June 27, 2003).  We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Lance Corporal Richard Ray of the South Carolina
Highway Patrol stopped a van traveling south on Interstate 95 for weaving. 
As Officer Ray approached the van, he noticed Brown asleep or reclining in the
rear of the vehicle.  After exiting the van at Ray’s request, the van’s driver,
Milton Butler, explained he had been driving for twenty hours and was tired. 
The officer issued the driver a warning citation for weaving. 

As Butler turned to leave, the officer asked if
he could ask a few more questions.  He asked if there was anything illegal in
the vehicle, and Brown said no.  Ray continued to ask the driver questions,
telling him that “he was not being accused of having any illegal items, but
if he did have anything illegal, such as alcohol or any marijuana, less than
an ounce, he could be given a ticket and released if he was honest.” 

After some discussion, Butler admitted there were
drugs in the van.  Ray then read Butler his Miranda
[1] rights and Butler stated there was maybe a quarter of an ounce of marijuana
in the van.  Ray then called Lance Corporal King to the scene.  Butler again
admitted there was marijuana in the van.  Another officer arrived and Brown
was asked to exit the vehicle. 

When King arrived, he circled the vehicle with
a drug dog several times.  He then entered the van with the dog and discovered
1.57 pounds of marijuana under bedding in the rear of the van. 

Brown was found guilty of possession of marijuana
with intent to distribute following a jury trial. 

DISCUSSION

Brown argues he and the driver
were unlawfully detained when the officer continued to ask questions after issuing
the warning citation.  Thus he argues the marijuana was discovered during an
unlawful seizure of his person and the court should have suppressed it.  This
issue is not preserved.

Although Brown moved to suppress the drugs
prior to the swearing of the jury, a motion the court denied after a hearing,
he failed to contemporaneously object when the marijuana or drug analysis were
admitted into evidence.  Because this evidence was admitted during the testimony
of the State’s second and third witnesses, his failure to renew his motion precludes
appellate review of the court’s ruling.  State v. King, 349 S.C. 142,
149-50, 561 S.E.2d 640, 643-44 (Ct. App. 2002) (holding an in limine motion
to suppress drugs must be renewed at the time the drugs are admitted into evidence
where the court’s ruling was not obtained immediately prior to the admission);
see also State v. Forrester, 343 S.C. 637, 642, 541 S.E.2d 837,
840 (2001) (holding ordinarily an evidentiary ruling in limine is not final
and an objection contemporaneous with the evidence’s admission is required to
preserve the issue for appeal).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF and STILWELL, JJ., and
CURETON, A.J., concur.

[1]         Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).