State v. Justin T. Hopkins

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Justin Tyler Ellaree Hopkins, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2022-001567

Appeal From Lexington County
Debra R. McCaslin, Circuit Court Judge

Opinion No. 6126
Heard May 6, 2025 – Filed December 3, 2025

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Gary Howard Johnson, II, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy
Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and
Assistant Attorney General Tommy Evans, Jr., all of
Columbia, and Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard, III, of
Lexington, all for Respondent.

MCDONALD, J.: Justin T. Hopkins appeals his convictions for murder and
burglary, arguing the circuit court erred in denying his motions to suppress: (1)
evidence obtained from the traffic stop of a vehicle seen leaving the parking area
of his apartment; (2) DNA evidence connected to his DNA profile; and (3)
evidence obtained during the search of his apartment. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History

In December 2019, Donnovin Haynes and Sheldon Livingston lived together at
Woodland Village Apartments in Lexington County. Haynes's friends, Duwan
Williams and Branton Booker, slept on the apartment couches when they needed a
place to stay. Haynes eventually admitted to law enforcement that Booker sold
drugs from the apartment.

On the morning of December 17, 2019, Haynes awoke to the sounds of gunfire
coming from inside the apartment. He ran to his bathroom, secured the door, and
locked himself in the bathroom closet. While hiding, Haynes heard the breaching
of doors and an unfamiliar voice say, "Where's it at?" When an intruder attempted
to kick in the closet door, Haynes used his weight to keep the door closed. The
assailant abandoned his effort to breach the closet door after another intruder said,
"Here it is. I found it." Once the intruders were gone and Haynes was able to exit
the bathroom, he saw a body beneath a pile of clothes in the hallway. He grabbed
his pants, jumped from a window, and fled to a neighbor's apartment to call 911.

Officer Scott Purdy of the Lexington County Sheriff's Department (LCSD)
responded to Haynes's 10:59 a.m. 911 call and arrived on scene to find Haynes
standing in the parking lot wearing only a pair of pants. Officer Purdy observed
Haynes was "super upset, kind of flailing all about and in a panic." When Haynes
reported that his friends had been shot, the responding officers kicked in the locked
front door to access the apartment.

Inside the apartment, Officer Purdy observed blood, and the officers could hear
someone—later identified as Williams—struggling to breathe. Officer Purdy
found Williams bleeding heavily, wrapped in a blanket on a couch. As law
enforcement cleared the scene, officers found open cabinets and noted everything
from the hallway closet had been dumped onto the floor. They also found
Livingston's body—he had been shot and left on the floor in his bedroom. Officers
then discovered a second decedent, Booker, beneath the pile of items pulled from
the hallway closet.

After calling for EMS, Officer Purdy worked to secure the crime scene while
Detective John Donnelly rendered aid to Williams, who was still alive at that point.
When asked if he knew who shot him, Williams replied, "No, not at all. I was
asleep." Williams subsequently succumbed to his injuries.
Detective Donnelly later observed blood on a door jamb, suggesting an incident
had occurred near the front door. In this same area, Crime Scene Investigator
Patrick Ward found a small blood trail from the laminate floor by the front door
heading toward the hallway where Booker's body was found.

The LCSD recovered multiple 9mm casings as well as projectiles consistent with a
.38mm revolver from the apartment. Investigator Ward photographed foot
impressions near the interior doors and processed the scene for fingerprints, touch
DNA, and blood. As part of the evidence collection process, Investigator Ward
swabbed the dead bolt latch on the inside of the apartment door for touch DNA.
Officers also recovered a digital scale and two bags of green plant material. No
cash was found in the apartment, and Haynes's rent money was missing from the
counter in his bathroom.

Law enforcement received several tips in the days following the home invasion.
Christy Meneses reported that around 11:00 a.m. on the day of the murders, she
saw a heavyset black male with a Band-Aid on his face pass her on a bicycle and
get into a white truck with dual rear wheels. The truck was hauling equipment in
the rear of the Woodland Village parking lot and was driving very fast. This
seemed strange to her due to the speed bumps in the area. Meneses saw the
heavyset male throw the bike down and get into the truck; he then exited the
vehicle and propped the bike up against a pole before re-entering the truck.
Officers drove around for several hours that day searching for a white dual-wheel
truck but did not locate the suspect vehicle.

Additional tips to the LCSD resulted in the development of Hopkins as a potential
suspect. In his affidavit supporting the search warrant application for Hopkins's
apartment, LCSD Detective Jacob Hendrix explained:

A confidential informant ("CI") provided information
that he was made aware by an acquaintance that a 9mm
Glock 26 handgun was for sale at a discounted price
because it was "hot". The gun was described to the "CI"
to have "3 bodies" on it, and the shooter was described as
[a] heavy set light skinned black male with a beard
named Justin or "Justo," who lived in Landmark
Apartments. It was reported by the "CI" that the shooting
was a relation [sic] for a physical fight that recently took
place with some of the victim's [sic] at the incident
location, and following the shooting, the "CI" reported
that a firearm and several miscellaneous items were
taken. The details provided by the "CI" were verifiable
non-public details of the crime and surrounding
circumstances, to include a firearm having been taken
from the residence, the recent fight at the incident
location, and the suspected make and caliber of the
murder weapon. Through information gathered through
social media, Landmark Apartment records, and the SC
DMV this new person of interest was identified as Justin
Hopkins.

Officers confirmed that the phone number connected to the sale of the firearm was
the same number Hopkins listed on his paperwork with Landmark Apartments.
The LCSD then monitored a phone call between the informant and Hopkins during
which Hopkins confirmed he had a Glock for sale for $380. Another individual
who lived near the incident scene reported looking out his back door and seeing a
person matching Hopkins's description fleeing the scene; this witness later
identified Hopkins from a lineup. The LCSD also received a report that Hopkins
matched the description of an individual who had been involved in a prior physical
altercation at Woodland Village. In addition to all of this, investigators received a
tip that Hopkins committed the offense with someone referred to as his "uncle" and
learned "another mutual acquaintance heard information directly from Hopkins that
he (Hopkins) committed the triple homicide."

On December 21, 2019, the LCSD confirmed that Hopkins lived in the Landmark
Apartments. Property manager Kim Herlong testified Hopkins lived in the
Landmark unit 27A, the apartment leased to his half-brother, Maxi Jacobs. Jacobs
lived elsewhere with his girlfriend, and he told Hopkins in November 2019 that he
would need to take over the lease when it expired in January. Herlong provided
Hopkins with the leasing application, and in December 2019, Hopkins completed
the application and noted his contact information—including his phone number.

The LCSD then sought a search warrant for Landmark Apartment 27A. In the
meantime, Detective James Pratt was assigned to conduct surveillance of the
apartment. On the evening of December 21, Detective Pratt saw a white dual
rear-wheel truck pull up to the apartment; a male matching Hopkins's description
exited the truck and entered apartment 27A. Detective Pratt notified Sergeant Nick
Burt of the truck's arrival, and Burt instructed him to try to get a tag number and
find a reason to stop the truck. Once he was about a mile away from the
apartments, Detective Pratt initiated a traffic stop due to the truck's defective tag
light. Pratt testified that he waited to initiate the stop to avoid alerting Hopkins,
who was still inside the apartment. Pratt observed construction equipment in the
bed of the truck and vehicle wear and tear consistent with construction work. He
further noted the truck matched the description of the vehicle Meneses saw leaving
Woodland Village around the time of the murders.

During this traffic stop, Detective Pratt spoke with the driver—Jeremy Cornish—
and Cornish's girlfriend. Cornish gave Detective Pratt his license and some
December 17 paperwork from the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles
(DMV) bearing Justin Hopkins's name. Although Cornish confirmed he had just
dropped off Hopkins and admitted he had known Hopkins for several years, he
claimed their relationship was "fairly sterile." When questioned about his
whereabouts on December 17, Cornish claimed he picked Hopkins up from Food
Lion that morning but later dropped him back off because rain prevented the
completion of their scheduled work at McEntire Air Force Base. Cornish did not
admit to being with Hopkins at any other point on December 17; he reported that
he went to the DMV and the bank and then remained at home with his girlfriend.
He denied having any knowledge of the December 17 murders or the subsequent
news coverage. Cornish consented to a search of the truck and allowed law
enforcement to photograph messages from his phone. Other than Cornish's
connection to Hopkins, officers found no incriminating evidence during their
search of the truck. Thus, Cornish was allowed to leave following the traffic stop.
At this time, law enforcement was unaware of the extent of Cornish's involvement
in the murders—they were instead focused on the white truck and the heavyset
man (Hopkins) identified by a witness.

When Detective Pratt left Woodland Village to follow the white truck, LCSD
Lieutenant Jonathan Brock assumed surveillance at the Hopkins apartment. Brock,
who drove an unmarked red pickup truck assigned to narcotics, estimated it took
him fifteen or twenty minutes to get to the Landmark Apartments that night.

Around 8:30 p.m. on December 21, a magistrate signed the search warrant for
apartment 27A, and Detective Hendrix radioed that the warrant had been obtained.
As Lieutenant Brock continued to watch the apartment, he saw a car pull into a
parking spot; an individual then exited the car and entered the apartment. At the
time, Brock was unable to identify this individual because the car's lights were
shining in his eyes. However, a little while later, someone carrying bags exited
apartment 27A and crossed in front of the headlights before entering the backseat
of the car. Lieutenant Brock identified this person as Hopkins and requested that a
marked vehicle respond to stop the car as it left the parking lot. Lieutenant Brock
explained:

So I called for a marked vehicle and the reason behind
that is that I want a vehicle that is clearly identifiable as
law enforcement with a light bar on top, the 360 lights,
clearly has sheriff's department written on the side
because when Mr. Hopkins got into the backseat of that
vehicle and the vehicle's leaving, then I know that that
vehicle is occupied by at least one other person who had
to be driving that vehicle. Now I was accompanied in
my truck by another officer, but it was two of us and I
had no idea really who that other person in that vehicle
was. Also, you know, it was a safety concern for us
because I don't know who I'm about to deal with and the
more law enforcement that is on the traffic stop I feel like
that would be safer and would cause somebody to pause
before trying to do anything that would harm me or the
person that I'm with.

Lieutenant Brock followed this car as it left the Landmark Apartments.1

LCSD Sergeant Aaron Poole arrived at Lieutenant Brock's location about a mile
from the Landmark Apartments and initiated the traffic stop at 8:59 p.m. When
Lieutenant Brock approached the car and shined his flashlight into the backseat, he
observed Hopkins reaching toward the bags at his feet. Brock instructed Hopkins
to put his hands up, and Hopkins complied. Hopkins was arrested during this
traffic stop.

Sergeant Burt seized the bags and obtained a search warrant for them. Inside the
bags, Sergeant Burt found Hopkins's wallet, his identification card, a cell phone, a
charger, a digital scale, white t-shirts, two .38 casings, three .38 rounds, and a 9mm
round. He also recovered a long-sleeved, "yellowish color" sweatshirt.

Meanwhile, law enforcement executed the search warrant at Hopkins's apartment.
Investigators photographed a trash can containing several Band-Aids and noted a
certificate with Hopkins's name displayed in the apartment. No firearms or

1
During his testimony, Sergeant Burt also referenced the safety concerns involved
with conducting a nighttime traffic stop in an unmarked car.
ammunition were recovered from the apartment, but officers seized a pair of work
boots2 and a red and white shirt with a reddish-brown stain.

The investigation continued after Hopkins's arrest, as officers gathered pictures and
videos of Cornish and Hopkins's activities on the day of the murders. Surveillance
footage from KJ's Market, a grocery store near the Landmark Apartments, showed
a white dually truck approaching the parking lot from the direction of Woodland
Village. Captain Jesse Laintz testified that a KJ's video also showed an individual
with a distinguishing mark on his face exit the truck, and he identified this person
as Hopkins. The video time stamp showed Hopkins was at KJ's at 11:10 a.m., and
his shirt appeared discolored near the back of his right hip. Captain Laintz further
observed Hopkins's vigilance and described him as having his "head on a swivel,"
constantly checking his surroundings while at KJ's. Hopkins is wearing brown or
tan work boots in the KJ's video.

Investigators used the information from Hopkins's DMV paperwork to obtain
DMV video footage and information about the transactions the two men conducted
on the day of the murders. DMV records indicated Hopkins and Cornish were at
the DMV together at 9:44 a.m. on December 17. The DMV video shows a
heavyset black male wearing a yellowish or orangish shirt entering the DMV with
someone matching Cornish's description. Captain Laintz further observed Hopkins
appeared to have a Band-Aid on his face. DMV customer service receipts reflect
additional transactions by Cornish later that afternoon.

In August 2022, a Lexington County grand jury indicted Hopkins and Cornish for
three counts of murder and one count of first-degree burglary; the two men were
later tried separately. Pretrial, Hopkins moved to suppress any evidence obtained
during the search of the car in which he was a passenger on the night of his arrest.
He also sought to suppress DNA evidence connected to his own DNA profile and
to Cornish.

At trial, South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) firearms expert Agent
James Green testified that two different handguns were used in the murders and
noted rounds consistent with each were found in the bags seized from Hopkins
during the traffic stop. SLED Agent Melinda Worley, an expert in footwear
impression examination and identification, testified that the work boots seized

2
The LCSD also seized work boots found in a search of Cornish's apartment.
from Hopkins's apartment were consistent with the footwear impression found at
the crime scene.

SLED Agent Samuel Stewart testified as an expert in DNA analysis. Agent
Stewart explained the analysis for touch DNA from the Woodland Village
apartment's deadbolt revealed a mix of contributors, one of whom was Cornish.
Agent Stewart also analyzed the DNA found on the stained white T-shirt seized
from one of Hopkins's bags and testified that decedent Williams was a match for
the blood stain. Testing of swabs from the collar and underarms of the shirt
indicated Hopkins was the number one DNA contributor for these areas.

Ultimately, the jury found Hopkins guilty of three counts of murder and one count
of first-degree burglary. The circuit court imposed concurrent life sentences for
the murders and eighteen years' imprisonment for first-degree burglary. Hopkins
timely appealed.

Standard of Review

"In criminal cases, appellate courts sit to review errors of law only." State v.
English, 443 S.C. 49, 55, 902 S.E.2d 385, 388 (2024).

[A]ppellate review of a motion to suppress based on the
Fourth Amendment involves a two-step analysis. This
dual inquiry means we review the trial court's factual
findings for any evidentiary support, but the ultimate
legal conclusion . . . is a question of law subject to de
novo review.

State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625, 633-34, 879 S.E.2d 762, 766 (2022).

Law and Analysis

I. The Traffic Stop and Search of Hopkins's Bags

Hopkins argues the circuit court erred in finding the search warrant for his
apartment allowed law enforcement to stop the vehicle seen leaving the Landmark
Apartments parking lot. But this argument ignores the other grounds supporting
the traffic stop and does not fully address the circuit court's findings. In this case,
the search warrant was not the sole justification for the stop; indeed, abundant
reasonable suspicion existed for law enforcement to stop the car in which Hopkins
was a passenger.

"The stopping of a vehicle and the detention of its occupants constitute a seizure
and implicate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches
and seizures." State v. Rowland, 444 S.C. 84, 95, 905 S.E.2d 825, 831 (Ct. App.
2024), cert. denied (Mar. 12, 2025). "Our courts have held that in South Carolina,
an officer may stop and briefly detain the occupants of a car without treading on
Fourth Amendment rights, even without probable cause to arrest, if he has a
reasonable suspicion that the occupants are involved in criminal activity." Id. at
96, 905 S.E.2d at 831; see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968) (holding a
police officer may briefly stop and detain a person to make "reasonable inquiries"
when the officer sees "unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in
light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot"). "The term 'reasonable
suspicion' requires a particularized and objective basis that would lead one to
suspect another of criminal activity." Rowland, 444 S.C. at 96, 905 S.E.2d at 831
(quoting State v. Woodruff, 344 S.C. 537, 546, 544 S.E.2d 290, 295 (Ct. App.
2001) (citations omitted)). "Although reasonable suspicion is not susceptible to a
rigid, formulaic approach, it requires more than a mere hunch or unparticularized
suspicion." Frasier, 437 S.C. at 635, 879 S.E.2d at 767. "While reasonable
suspicion is not a high bar and 'is a less demanding standard than probable cause
and requires a showing considerably less than preponderance of the evidence, the
Fourth Amendment requires at least a minimal level of objective justification for
making the stop.'" Id. (quoting Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000)).
"This inquiry involves the totality of the circumstances, and '[c]ourts must give due
weight to common sense judgments reached by officers in light of their experience
and training.'" Id. (alteration by court) (quoting State v. Moore, 415 S.C. 245, 252-
53, 781 S.E.2d 897, 901 (2016)). "Reasonable suspicion, like probable cause, is
dependent upon both the content of information possessed by police and its degree
of reliability." Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330 (1990).

In Michigan v. Summers, the United States Supreme Court held that "a warrant to
search for contraband founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the
limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is
conducted." 452 U.S. 692, 705 (1981) (footnote omitted). The Court explained,
"If the evidence that a citizen's residence is harboring contraband is sufficient to
persuade a judicial officer that an invasion of the citizen's privacy is justified, it is
constitutionally reasonable to require that citizen to remain while officers of the
law execute a valid warrant to search his home." Id. at 704-05.
The Supreme Court later clarified Summers in Bailey v. United States:

Summers recognized that a rule permitting the detention
of occupants on the premises during the execution of a
search warrant, even absent individualized suspicion, was
reasonable and necessary in light of the law enforcement
interests in conducting a safe and efficient search.
Because this exception grants substantial authority to
police officers to detain outside of the traditional rules of
the Fourth Amendment, it must be circumscribed.

A spatial constraint defined by the immediate vicinity of
the premises to be searched is therefore required for
detentions incident to the execution of a search warrant.
The police action permitted here—the search of a
residence—has a spatial dimension, and so a spatial or
geographical boundary can be used to determine the area
within which both the search and detention incident to
that search may occur. Limiting the rule in Summers to
the area in which an occupant poses a real threat to the
safe and efficient execution of a search warrant ensures
that the scope of the detention incident to a search is
confined to its underlying justification. Once an
occupant is beyond the immediate vicinity of the
premises to be searched, the search-related law
enforcement interests are diminished and the
intrusiveness of the detention is more severe.

568 U.S. 186, 200-01 (2013).

Because detention is justified by the interests in
executing a safe and efficient search, the decision to
detain must be acted upon at the scene of the search and
not at a later time in a more remote place. If officers
elect to defer the detention until the suspect or departing
occupant leaves the immediate vicinity, the lawfulness of
detention is controlled by other standards, including, of
course, a brief stop for questioning based on reasonable
suspicion under Terry or an arrest based on probable
cause. A suspect's particular actions in leaving the scene,
including whether he appears to be armed or fleeing with
the evidence sought, and any information the officers
acquire from those who are conducting the search,
including information that incriminating evidence has
been discovered, will bear, of course, on the lawfulness
of a later stop or detention.

Id. at 201-02.

During pretrial motions, the State proffered testimony addressing the search
warrants and the Hopkins traffic stop. Lieutenant Brock explained he was
surveilling Hopkins's apartment in an unmarked truck when he observed a car pull
up; an unidentified individual then exited this car and entered Apartment 27A.
Detective Hendrix later radioed that the search warrant for Hopkins's apartment
had been signed, and shortly thereafter, Lieutenant Brock saw someone exit the
apartment and enter this car. Lieutenant Brock identified this individual based
upon Hopkins's description and photographs obtained in the investigation. He
further noted Hopkins's "height and weight were pretty discernable," with Hopkins
being five feet, nine inches tall and weighing three hundred pounds.

Lieutenant Brock explained he would have stopped the vehicle before it left the
parking lot, but the unmarked narcotics truck in which he was conducting
surveillance presented safety concerns. According to Lieutenant Brock, the better
practice is to conduct nighttime traffic stops with a marked police vehicle outfitted
with visible lights so that people are aware it is indeed law enforcement attempting
a stop. He further noted no weapons had been recovered in connection with the
three murders; thus, it was his belief that Hopkins, already identified as a suspect,
was likely armed. A white dual rear-wheel truck seen leaving the apartments
earlier in the evening had already been stopped, and officers were justifiably
concerned that someone might have tipped off Hopkins that law enforcement was
preparing to search his apartment.

The circuit court found the traffic stop was properly supported by reasonable
suspicion and further recognized that the search warrant was signed before law
enforcement observed Hopkins leaving his apartment with the two bags. The
circuit court acknowledged the safety concerns associated with having an
unmarked vehicle initiate the traffic stop because this was a triple homicide
investigation and law enforcement did not know whether Hopkins was armed when
he entered the vehicle with his bags. Due to these safety concerns and the
nighttime hour, the circuit court properly recognized that it was reasonable for law
enforcement to wait for a marked car to arrive before executing the stop.

Although Hopkins correctly argues that the authority of a search warrant may not
necessarily extend to the search of a vehicle a mile away from the subject
premises, in this case the search warrant merely provides further support for the
circuit court's reasonable suspicion analysis. See White, 496 U.S. at 330
("Reasonable suspicion, like probable cause, is dependent upon both the content of
information possessed by police and its degree of reliability."). Here, a magistrate
found probable cause existed for the apartment search upon signing the search
warrant identifying Hopkins as the suspect in the investigation of a home invasion
and three murders. These facts would have been known throughout the LCSD due
to the regular briefings held in the days following the murders to share
information, intelligence, and "what need[ed] to be done moving forward" in the
case. In addition to the prior excerpt, the detailed warrant affidavit states:

The "CI" spoke to Justin [Hopkins] by phone while law
enforcement listened which we were able to confirm was
the same Verizon Wireless number listed for him with
Landmark Apartments as accurate, and during the call
Justin confirmed that he had a Glock handgun for sale for
$380.00. Justin, who lives within approximately a mile
of the incident location, at 5 feet 9 inches tall and 300
lbs, also matches the distinct physical description of a
short, heavy set light skinned black male with a beard
seen fleeing the area by multiple witnesses. One witness
reported that he heard loud noise coming from the
incident location, similar to a hammer hitting wood and
after looking out his back door saw an individual
matching this description running from the scene. The
same witness was presented with a photo lineup and
positively identified the same Justin Tyler Ellaree
Hopkins as the individual seen running from the scene
the day and time of the incident. He also described
seeing Justin near the incident location on previous
occasions, and Justin's description is consistent with
individuals described by another witness as having been
in a fight at this location recently.
In addition to all of this, law enforcement was concerned about the potential
destruction of evidence—Hopkins exited his apartment that night with two bags,
and a confidential informant had previously reported Hopkins's efforts to sell a
"hot" gun with "3 bodies on it." See Rowland, 444 S.C. at 96, 905 S.E.2d at 831
("Our courts have held that in South Carolina, an officer may stop and briefly
detain the occupants of a car without treading on Fourth Amendment rights, even
without probable cause to arrest, if he has a reasonable suspicion that the occupants
are involved in criminal activity."). Lieutenant Brock further noted law
enforcement had not yet recovered the weapons connected with the murders. He
identified Hopkins based upon the descriptions given, photos and videos obtained
early in the investigation, and Hopkins's "pretty discernable" height and weight.
Lieutenant Brock did not call for the traffic stop merely because Hopkins was seen
leaving the apartment to be searched. Rather, law enforcement had independent,
reasonable suspicion to call for a uniformed officer to execute the traffic stop, and
the fact that a magistrate found probable cause to believe the suspect's apartment
contained evidence of these crimes was an additional factor appropriate to the
analysis. See Fraser, 437 S.C. at 635, 879 S.E.2d at 767 ("This inquiry involves
the totality of the circumstances, and '[c]ourts must give due weight to common
sense judgments reached by officers in light of their experience and training.'"
(alteration by court) (quoting Moore, 415 S.C. at 252-53, 781 S.E.2d at 901)).
Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court as to this issue.

II. DNA

Hopkins next argues the circuit court erred in refusing to suppress DNA evidence
connected to both his DNA profile and Cornish's DNA profile. Hopkins contends
the State improperly collected both samples based upon an assumption that the two
men's DNA would be useful, rather than the existence of actual evidence. He
further asserts the warrant affidavits lacked the required assertion that the
identified suspects' DNA was found at the crime scene. We disagree, and we
emphasize that there is no requirement that law enforcement develop a full or
partial DNA profile before seeking a properly supported warrant for the collection
of a suspect's DNA.

"[U]sing a buccal swab on the inner tissues of a person's cheek in order to obtain
DNA samples is a search." Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435, 446 (2013).

Considerations for determining whether or not there
exists probable cause to permit the acquisition of such
nontestimonial identification evidence include the
following elements: (1) probable cause to believe the
suspect has committed the crime; (2) a clear indication
that relevant material evidence will be found; and (3) the
method used to secure it is safe and reliable.

State v. Chisholm, 395 S.C. 259, 267, 717 S.E.2d 614, 618 (Ct. App. 2011).
"Additional factors to be weighed are the seriousness of the crime and the
importance of the evidence to the investigation. The judge is required to balance
the necessity for acquiring involuntary nontestimonial identification evidence
against constitutional safeguards prohibiting unreasonable bodily intrusions,
searches, and seizures." State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 54, 625 S.E.2d 216, 223
(2006).

During pretrial motions, the State argued Hopkins's DNA obtained pursuant to a
September 23, 2022 search warrant was admissible. The State noted Hopkins's
buccal swabs were obtained when he was arrested in 2019, and his DNA was
entered into the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) at that time. SLED
identified Hopkins's DNA on a shirt (found in one of his bags during the traffic
stop) that also contained blood matching decedent Williams's DNA exemplar.
Law enforcement would have requested that SLED enter the DNA into CODIS had
there been no such sample for comparison. Thus, even in the absence of a proper
warrant, the State would have inevitably discovered the DNA match through a
CODIS comparison.

The State explained that it sought to obtain a new set of buccal swabs from
Hopkins once SLED identified the blood on the T-shirt as belonging to Williams.
Detectives appropriately believed Hopkins's DNA was needed to compare to the
reference samples collected from the crime scene and Hopkins's bags, and the State
sought the buccal swab warrants for such comparisons.

Hopkins argues the affidavit supporting the buccal swab request did not
appropriately identify the evidence to which his DNA would be compared. He
reasons that the mere fact that law enforcement seeks to obtain buccal swabs does
not indicate material evidence of a suspect's guilt exists and emphasizes there is no
mention in the warrant affidavit that a DNA profile had been developed. Such an
argument puts the cart before the horse.

Like the circuit court, we are unaware of any authority requiring that either a full
or partial DNA profile be developed before law enforcement may properly seek a
warrant for buccal swabs (or obtain them for processing upon an individual's
arrest). As the circuit court stated, "I think the bottom line is, is that you've got to
have something that's relevant evidence to compare it too. I don't think that you
can think that DNA's gonna be developed overnight and you have your result."
The circuit court further explained,

I read the Maryland case [today and] the moment that
you're arrested they do a DNA swab on you, just the
moment you're arrested, and then they run it through the
whole database and compare it to whatever they want to.
So, I mean, I'm not real sure that I'm sold on the idea I
need some partial or a full profile before we do that. I
think they did have items to compare. I think it was
relevant evidence. All of it came from the murder scene,
the T-shirt with the blood on it, I think that is sufficient,
so I'm going to allow that search warrant.

A December 22, 2019 warrant sought buccal swabs from Hopkins, and the LCSD
collected these swabs later that day. On September 23, 2022, additional warrants
were issued for Hopkins's DNA and Cornish's DNA. The Hopkins warrant
affidavit noted, "The requested property is sought as [a] known standard to
compare against DNA swabs for touch DNA and swabs of blood taken from the
crime scene, which it is reasonably believed will further tie Justin [Hopkins] to this
incident." As discussed in Section I, the December 21, 2019 search warrant
affidavit contains detailed information addressing how law enforcement came to
develop Hopkins as a suspect in the murders. This alone sufficiently established
the need (and the requisite probable cause) to collect Hopkins's DNA. The equally
detailed September 2022 warrant affidavit contains additional information gathered
after Hopkins's arrest related to the items found in the search of Hopkins's
apartment and the bags seized during his traffic stop. We agree with the circuit
court that there is no requirement that law enforcement develop a DNA profile
from crime scene evidence prior to seeking a warrant for comparison buccal
swabs, so long as the requisite probable cause exists to seek the samples, and the
Chisolm factors are satisfied. See, e.g., United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 95
(2006) ("Because the probable-cause requirement looks to whether evidence will
be found when the search is conducted, all warrants are, in a sense, 'anticipatory.'
In the typical case where the police seek permission to search a house for an item
they believe is already located there, the magistrate's determination that there is
probable cause for the search amounts to a prediction that the item will still be
there when the warrant is executed."). The circuit court properly denied Hopkins's
motion to suppress the DNA evidence.
III. Search of the Landmark Apartment

Hopkins next argues the circuit court erred in refusing to suppress evidence
obtained during the search of his apartment. He contends the supporting warrant
affidavit was defective because it lacked information to support a probable cause
finding that Hopkins actually lived in the apartment to be searched. We disagree.

"Evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded from
trial." State v. Dill, 423 S.C. 534, 542, 816 S.E.2d 557, 562 (2018) (quoting State
v. Khingratsaiphon, 352 S.C. 62, 69, 572 S.E.2d 456, 459 (2002)). "A search or
seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when it is authorized by a
warrant that is supported by probable cause." Id. "A warrant is supported by
probable cause if, given the totality of the circumstances set forth in the affidavit,
there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a
particular place." State v. Kinloch, 410 S.C. 612, 617, 767 S.E.2d 153, 155 (2014).
"Our task is to decide whether the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding
probable cause existed. The term 'probable cause' does not import absolute
certainty. Rather, in determining whether a search warrant should be issued,
magistrates are concerned with probabilities and not certainties." State v.
Crummey, 443 S.C. 94, 107, 902 S.E.2d 391, 398 (Ct. App. 2024) (quoting State v.
Dupree, 354 S.C. 676, 683, 583 S.E.2d 437, 441 (Ct. App. 2003)).

In South Carolina, search warrants may be issued "only
upon affidavit sworn to before the magistrate . . .
establishing the grounds for the warrant." The affidavit
must set forth particular facts and circumstances
underlying the existence of probable cause to allow the
magistrate to make an independent evaluation of the
matter.

Baccus, 367 S.C. at 50-51, 625 S.E.2d at 221 (citations omitted) (quoting S.C.
Code Ann. § 17-13-140 (2003)).

During pretrial motions, Sergeant Burt explained that Hopkins had been positively
identified as the individual getting into the white dually truck on the day of the
murders and that an LCSD officer who lived at the Landmark Apartments as a
courtesy officer was able to confirm Hopkins lived in apartment 27A.
Considering the parties' arguments, the circuit court noted, "I was looking at the
affidavit. I must be missing something because I can't find anything wrong with it.
It says Landmark Apartments. The room to be searched is 27A." When Hopkins
argued the description of the place to be searched in the warrant affidavit did not
specifically identify the apartment as apartment 27A, the circuit court responded, "I
think it says pretty clear where they're wanting to go." Hopkins then claimed that
although the description of the property to be searched indicated the apartment
number, it was necessary that this information be repeated in the affidavit. He
further asserted a proper affidavit must contain the reason for the affiant's belief
that the property sought was on the subject premises and state that Hopkins resided
in 27A. The State noted the affidavit indicated law enforcement obtained records
from an employee at Landmark Apartments indicating Hopkins lived there,
Hopkins's phone number was associated with Landmark Apartments, and
information obtained from social media indicated Hopkins lived at Landmark.

The circuit court found the search warrant for the apartment was valid because the
description of the vicinity to be searched was clear and the affidavit referenced
Landmark Apartment records as well as other information law enforcement had
gathered to support that Hopkins lived in apartment 27A—as the affidavit and
warrant specifically indicated.

We agree with the circuit court on all points, including the finding that probable
cause existed to indicate Hopkins lived in apartment 27A. The supporting affidavit
for the search warrant states LCSD confirmed the phone number connected to the
attempted sale of the "hot" firearm was the same number Hopkins provided on his
paperwork for Landmark Apartments. This information provided a substantial
basis for concluding probable cause existed because it gave rise to a fair
probability that Hopkins lived in the identified unit. Moreover, the property
manager confirmed Hopkins had been living in 27A and that he had recently
completed the paperwork to assume his half-brother's lease. The night before the
search, LCSD again confirmed this information with the Landmark office. The
circuit court correctly declined to suppress the evidence gathered at the Hopkins
apartment.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Hopkins's convictions and sentences are

AFFIRMED.
KONDUROS and VINSON, JJ., concur.