State v. Jackson

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.

Kenneth Odell Jackson, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-212700

Appeal From Spartanburg County
Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-016
Submitted August 1, 2014 – Filed January 14, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Benjamin John Tripp, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General John Benjamin Aplin, both of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Morris, 395 S.C. 600, 606, 720 S.E.2d 468, 471 (Ct. App.
2011) ("When reviewing a Fourth Amendment search and seizure case, an
appellate court must affirm if there is any evidence to support the ruling. The
appellate court will reverse only when there is clear error." (emphasis added)); id.
"[T]his deference does not bar this [c]ourt from conducting its own review of the
record to determine whether the trial [court]'s decision is supported by the
evidence." (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Tindall, 388 S.C. 518, 523
n.5, 698 S.E.2d 203, 206 n.5 (2010) (stating an appellate court "must ask first,
whether the record supports the trial court's assumed findings . . . and second,
whether these facts support a finding that that the officer had reasonable suspicion
of a serious crime to justify continued detention of [the defendant]"); State v.
Pichardo, 367 S.C. 84, 98, 623 S.E.2d 840, 847 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Once a motor
vehicle is detained lawfully for a traffic violation, the police may order the driver
to exit the vehicle without violating Fourth Amendment proscriptions on
unreasonable searches and seizures."); Morris, 395 S.C. at 607, 720 S.E.2d at 471
(stating the officer may also request a driver's license and vehicle registration, run
a computer check, and issue a citation); State v. Provet, 405 S.C. 101, 108, 747
S.E.2d 453, 457 (2013) ("A traffic stop supported by reasonable suspicion of a
traffic violation remains valid until the purpose of the traffic stop has been
completed."); id. at 115, 747 S.E.2d at 460 ("[O]ff-topic questioning does not
constitute a separate seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes so long as it does not
measurably extend the duration of a lawful traffic stop.").

AFFIRMED.1

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

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