State v. Randall

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.

Charles Todd Randall, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

 Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-052   

Submitted October 1, 2004 – Filed January 20, 2005

AFFIRMED

Tara  Dawn Shurling, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan  McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John
W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant
Attorney General W. Rutledge Martin, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Thomas E.
Pope, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Charles Todd Randall appeals his conviction for possession
of crack cocaine.  Randall argues that police officers violated the Fourth Amendment
prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures when they searched his
mouth.  We affirm [1] pursuant
to Rule 220(b), SCACR and the following authorities: State v. Wannamaker,
346 S.C. 495, 499, 552 S.E.2d 284, 286 (2001) (explaining that a ruling in
limine is not final, and an objection must be made at the time the evidence
is offered and a final ruling procured in order to preserve the issue for review);
Samples v. Mitchell, 329 S.C. 105, 108, 495 S.E.2d 213, 215 (Ct. App.
1997) (“Making a motion in limine to exclude evidence . . . does not
preserve an issue for review because a motion in limine is not a final
determination.  The moving party, therefore, must make a contemporaneous objection
when the evidence is introduced.”).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J. and HUFF and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.

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