State v. Mitchell

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.

Elliott M. Mitchell, Appellant.

Appeal From Beaufort County

 J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-083

Submitted January 2, 2009 – Filed February
12, 2009

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, 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 Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor I. McDuffie  Stone, III, of Beaufort, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Elliott
Mitchell appeals his conviction for trafficking ten to twenty-eight grams of
crack cocaine.  Mitchell contends the crack cocaine was the product of his
unlawful arrest for criminal domestic violence (CDV) and asserts the trial
court erred in denying his motion to suppress.  We find that Mitchell was first
lawfully detained by a Port Royal police officer within Port Royal city limits
pursuant to a "be on the lookout" report originating from the
neighboring city of Beaufort regarding a suspect in a CDV investigation;
custody of Mitchell was then transferred to a Beaufort police officer for
questioning while still in Port Royal.  We further find that, during
questioning by the Beaufort police officer, probable cause to arrest Mitchell
was developed.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 16-25-70(A) (Supp. 2008) (providing
that a law enforcement officer may arrest a person without a warrant "at
the person's place of residence or elsewhere if the officer has probable cause
to believe that the person is committing or has freshly committed" an act
of misdemeanor or felony CDV."); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-25-70(B) (Supp. 2008)
(requiring an officer to arrest a suspect where the alleged victim presents
physical manifestations of injury and the officer has probable cause to believe
the suspect recently committed an act of CDV); S.C. Code Ann. §
16-25-70(H)(1)(b) (Supp. 2008) (explaining evidence discovered as a result of a
warrantless search, administered pursuant to a CDV complaint, is admissible if
the evidence was found during a search incident to a lawful arrest for alleged
CDV).  Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.[1]

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

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