State v. Belt

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.

Darren Keith Belt, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-002350

Appeal From Charleston County
Kristi Lea Harrington, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-150
Submitted March 1, 2017 – Filed April 5, 2017

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Laura Ruth Baer, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Susan Ranee Saunders, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of
Charleston, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Robinson v. State, 407 S.C. 169, 180-81, 754 S.E.2d 862, 868 (2014)
("On appeal from a motion to suppress on Fourth Amendment grounds, this [c]ourt
applies a deferential standard of review and will reverse only if there is clear
error."); State v. Brockman, 339 S.C. 57, 66, 528 S.E.2d 661, 666 (2000) ("[W]e
will review the trial court's [Fourth Amendment] ruling like any other factual
finding and reverse if there is clear error. We will affirm if there is any evidence to
support the ruling." (emphasis added)); Robinson, 407 S.C. at 182, 754 S.E.2d at
868 ("[L]ooking at the totality of the circumstances, reasonable suspicion requires
there be an objective, specific basis for suspecting the person stopped of criminal
activity."); id. at 182, 754 S.E.2d at 869 ("The police officer may make reasonable
inferences regarding the criminality of a situation in light of his experience, but he
must be able to point to articulable facts that, in conjunction with his inferences,
'reasonably warrant' the intrusion." (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968)));
id. ("If, during the stop of the vehicle, the officer's suspicions are confirmed or
further aroused—even if for a different reason than he initiated the stop—the stop
may be prolonged, and the scope of the detention enlarged as circumstances
require.").

AFFIRMED.1

GEATHERS, MCDONALD, and HILL, JJ., concur.

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