State v. Lyles

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.

Courtney Deon
Lyles, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

 Brooks P. Goldsmith, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-693

Submitted December 1, 2008 – Filed
December 15, 2008   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Eleanor D. Cleary, 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 Michelle J. Parsons, all of Columbia; Solicitor Harold W.
Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
In this criminal appeal, Courtney Deon Lyles argues the trial court erred in admitting certain statements and
drugs 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); 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.”); State v. Lane,
271 S.C. 68, 72, 245 S.E.2d 114, 116 (1978) (holding an odor emanating from the
packages alone was sufficient basis to establish probable cause as to their
contents when it is considered that an officer of the law, familiar with the
odor of marijuana, believed the odor being emitted was that of marijuana); U.S.
v. Scheetz, 293 F.3d 175, 184 (4th Cir. 2002) (holding the smell of
marijuana alone can satisfy the probable cause required to search automobiles).

AFFIRMED.

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

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