State v. Kirkman

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.

Rahiem Kirkman, Appellant.

Appeal From Anderson County

 Alexander S. Macaulay, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-500

Submitted November 1, 2011 – Filed
November 9, 2011

AFFIRMED

J. Falkner Wilkes, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John
W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant
Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Christina T.
Adams, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Rahiem Kirkman appeals his conviction for
trafficking in cocaine, arguing the circuit court erred in denying his motion
to suppress evidence seized as a result of an unlawful detention and search. 
We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v.
Tindall, 388 S.C. 518, 521, 698 S.E.2d 203, 205 (2010) ("On appeals
from a motion to suppress based on Fourth Amendment grounds, [an appellate
court] applies a deferential standard of review and will reverse if there is
clear error."); Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 409 (2005)
("[T]he use of a well-trained narcotics-detection dog . . . [,] performed
on the exterior of [a driver's] car while he [is] lawfully seized for a traffic
violation[,] . . . does not rise to the level of a constitutionally cognizable
infringement."); State v. Morris, Op. No. 4872 (S.C. Ct. App. refiled
Nov. 2, 2011) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 39 at 18, 26) (holding that an officer
may search any part of a vehicle without a warrant if there is probable cause); State v. Brown, 389 S.C. 473, 482, 698 S.E.2d 811, 816 (Ct. App. 2010)
("Probable cause to search exists where the known facts and circumstances
are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that
contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW,
C.J., THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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