warrant requirement in South Carolina

2023See State v. Wright, 391 S.C. 436, 442 , 706 S.E.2d 324, 326 (2011) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." (quoting State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 557 , 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002))); State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 132 , 620 S.E.2d 737, 740 (2005) ("There are two historical rationales for the 'search incident to arrest' exception to the warrant requirement: (1) the need to disarm the suspect in order to take him into custody, and (2) the need to preserve evidence for later use at trial."); id. ("A warran

2023See State v. Wright, 391 S.C. 436, 442 , 706 S.E.2d 324, 326 (2011) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." (quoting State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 557 , 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002))); State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 132 , 620 S.E.2d 737, 740 (2005) ("There are two historical rationales for the 'search incident to arrest' exception to the warrant requirement: (1) the need to disarm the suspect in order to take him into custody, and (2) the need to preserve evidence for later use at trial."); id. ("A warran

2026See State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633-34, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022) (explaining appellate courts 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. Butler, 353 S.C. 383, 389 , 577 S.E.2d 498, 501 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The stopping of a vehicle and the detention of its occupants constitutes a seizure and implicates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures."); State v. German, 439 S.C. 449 , 461, 887 S.E.2d 912 , 918 (2023) ("A warrantless

2026See State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633-34, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022) (explaining appellate courts 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. Butler, 353 S.C. 383, 389 , 577 S.E.2d 498, 501 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The stopping of a vehicle and the detention of its occupants constitutes a seizure and implicates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures."); State v. German, 439 S.C. 449 , 461, 887 S.E.2d 912 , 918 (2023) ("A warrantless

2020"Warrantless searches and seizures are unreasonable absent a recognized exception to the warrant requirement." State v. Brown, 401 S.C. 82, 89 , 736 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2012) (citation omitted).

2020"Warrantless searches and seizures are unreasonable absent a recognized exception to the warrant requirement." State v. Brown, 401 S.C. 82, 89 , 736 S.E.2d 263, 266 (2012) (citation omitted).

2015“The exigent circumstances doctrine provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment[’]s protection against warrantless searches, but only where, from an objective standard, a compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant exists.” State v. Abdullah, 357 S.C. 344, 351 , 592 S.E.2d 344, 348 (Ct.App.2004); see State v. Brown, 289 S.C. 581, 587 , 347 S.E.2d 882, 886 (1986) (acknowledging the exigent circumstances doctrine as an exception to the warrant requirement).

2015“The exigent circumstances doctrine provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment[’]s protection against warrantless searches, but only where, from an objective standard, a compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant exists.” State v. Abdullah, 357 S.C. 344, 351 , 592 S.E.2d 344, 348 (Ct.App.2004); see State v. Brown, 289 S.C. 581, 587 , 347 S.E.2d 882, 886 (1986) (acknowledging the exigent circumstances doctrine as an exception to the warrant requirement).

2021See State v. Herring, 387 S.C. 201, 210 , 692 S.E.2d 490, 494 (2009) ("[T]he ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is 'reasonableness' . . . ."); id. ("A fairly perceived need to act on the spot may justify entry and search under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement."); id. ("Protecting the safety of police officers has also been held an exigent circumstance."); State v. Dobbins, 420 S.C. 583, 591 , 803 S.E.2d 876, 880 (Ct. App. 2017) ("In the Fourth Amendment context, a court is concerned with determining whether a reasonable officer would be moved to take acti

2021See State v. Herring, 387 S.C. 201, 210 , 692 S.E.2d 490, 494 (2009) ("[T]he ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is 'reasonableness' . . . ."); id. ("A fairly perceived need to act on the spot may justify entry and search under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement."); id. ("Protecting the safety of police officers has also been held an exigent circumstance."); State v. Dobbins, 420 S.C. 583, 591 , 803 S.E.2d 876, 880 (Ct. App. 2017) ("In the Fourth Amendment context, a court is concerned with determining whether a reasonable officer would be moved to take acti

2017See generally State v. Robinson, 410 S.C. 519, 526 , 765 S.E.2d 564, 568 (2014) (stating “warrantless searches and seizures inside a man’s home are presumptively unreasonable absent a recognized exception to the warrant requirement”).

2017See generally State v. Robinson, 410 S.C. 519, 526 , 765 S.E.2d 564, 568 (2014) (stating “warrantless searches and seizures inside a man’s home are presumptively unreasonable absent a recognized exception to the warrant requirement”).

2020Ed. 2d 908, 919-20 (1966)); United States v. McGee, 736 F.3d 263, 269 (4th Cir. 2013) ("The government bears the burden of proof in justifying a warrantless search or seizure."); State v. Gamble, 405 S.C. 409, 416 , 747 S.E.2d 784, 787 (2013) ("The prosecution bears the burden of establishing . . . the existence of circumstances constituting an exception" to the warrant requirement); see also 6 Wayne R.

2020Ed. 2d 908, 919-20 (1966)); United States v. McGee, 736 F.3d 263, 269 (4th Cir. 2013) ("The government bears the burden of proof in justifying a warrantless search or seizure."); State v. Gamble, 405 S.C. 409, 416 , 747 S.E.2d 784, 787 (2013) ("The prosecution bears the burden of establishing . . . the existence of circumstances constituting an exception" to the warrant requirement); see also 6 Wayne R.

2019"Evidence seized in violation of the warrant requirement must be excluded from trial." Id. at 163, 776 S.E.2d at 65 (quoting Robinson , 407 S.C. at 185 , 754 S.E.2d at 870 ).

2019See generally State v. Counts , 413 S.C. 153 , 163, 776 S.E.2d 59 , 65 (2015) (providing "consent" and "exigent circumstances" are recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement).

2023Code Ann. § 56-5-2946 (A)–(B) (2018) (emphasis added). 2 Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (holding the natural metabolization of BAC does not create a per se exigency as an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement). 3 Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016) (holding warrantless breath tests, but not blood tests, are permitted as searches incident to arrest under the Fourth Amendment). to consider whether the warrantless blood draw based on section 56-5-2946 violated Appellant's Fourth Amendment rights or her rights under the South Carolina Constitution and, in ef

2023Code Ann. § 56-5-2946 (A)–(B) (2018) (emphasis added). 2 Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (holding the natural metabolization of BAC does not create a per se exigency as an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement). 3 Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016) (holding warrantless breath tests, but not blood tests, are permitted as searches incident to arrest under the Fourth Amendment). law enforcement had probable cause to suspect Appellant of felony DUI and properly obtained the blood draw pursuant to section 56-5-2946.

2017“Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable unless an exception to the warrant requirement is presented.” State v. Bailey, 276 S.C. 32, 35 , 274 S.E.2d 913, 915 (1981).

2017“Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable unless an exception to the warrant requirement is presented.” State v. Bailey, 276 S.C. 32, 35 , 274 S.E.2d 913, 915 (1981).

2015“The exigent circumstances doctrine provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment[’]s protection against warrantless searches, but only where, from an objective standard, a compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant exists.” State v. Abdullah, 357 S.C. 344, 351 , 592 S.E.2d 344, 348 (Ct.App.2004); see State v. Brown, 289 S.C. 581, 587 , 347 S.E.2d 882, 886 (1986) (acknowledging the exigent circumstances doctrine as an exception to the warrant requirement).

2015“The exigent circumstances doctrine provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment[’]s protection against warrantless searches, but only where, from an objective standard, a compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant exists.” State v. Abdullah, 357 S.C. 344, 351 , 592 S.E.2d 344, 348 (Ct.App.2004); see State v. Brown, 289 S.C. 581, 587 , 347 S.E.2d 882, 886 (1986) (acknowledging the exigent circumstances doctrine as an exception to the warrant requirement).

2019He relied on Missouri v. McNeely , 569 U.S. 141 , 133 S. Ct. 1552 , 185 L.Ed. 2d 696 (2013), decided six months earlier, in which the Supreme Court of the United States held "the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream [does not] present[ ] a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing." 569 U.S. at 145 , 133 S. Ct. at 1556 , 185 L.Ed. 2d at 702 ; see also 569 U.S. at 148 , 133 S. Ct. at 1558 , 185 L.Ed. 2d at 704 (restating that "a blood sample ... drawn from a defendant suspected of driving while under

2019He relied on Missouri v. McNeely , 569 U.S. 141 , 133 S. Ct. 1552 , 185 L.Ed. 2d 696 (2013), decided six months earlier, in which the Supreme Court of the United States held "the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream [does not] present[ ] a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing." 569 U.S. at 145 , 133 S. Ct. at 1556 , 185 L.Ed. 2d at 702 ; see also 569 U.S. at 148 , 133 S. Ct. at 1558 , 185 L.Ed. 2d at 704 (restating that "a blood sample ... drawn from a defendant suspected of driving while under

2018Warrantless searches and seizures are "per se unreasonable absent a recognized exception." State v. Bruce, 412 S.C. 504, 510 , 772 S.E.2d 753, 756 (2015). "[O]ne of the specifically established exceptions to the requirements of both a warrant and probable cause is a search that is conducted pursuant to consent." Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973). [T]o satisfy the 'reasonableness' requirement of the Fourth Amendment, what is generally demanded of the many factual determinations that must regularly be made by agents of the government—whether the magistrate issuing a warrant, th

2018Warrantless searches and seizures are "per se unreasonable absent a recognized exception." State v. Bruce, 412 S.C. 504, 510 , 772 S.E.2d 753, 756 (2015). "[O]ne of the specifically established exceptions to the requirements of both a warrant and probable cause is a search that is conducted pursuant to consent." Schneckloth v. Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973). [T]o satisfy the 'reasonableness' requirement of the Fourth Amendment, what is generally demanded of the many factual determinations that must regularly be made by agents of the government—whether the magistrate issuing a warrant, th

2016“Under the ‘plain view’ exception to the warrant requirement, objects falling within the plain view of a law enforcement officer who is rightfully in a position to view the objects are subject to seizure and may be introduced as evidence.” State v. Beckham, 334 S.C. 302, 317 , 513 S.E.2d 606, 613 (1999).

2016“Under the ‘plain view’ exception to the warrant requirement, objects falling within the plain view of a law enforcement officer who is rightfully in a position to view the objects are subject to seizure and may be introduced as evidence.” State v. Beckham, 334 S.C. 302, 317 , 513 S.E.2d 606, 613 (1999).

2017“Warrantless searches and seizures are unreasonable absent a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Wright, 391 S.C. 436, 442 , 706 S.E.2d 324, 327 (2011) (citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 386 , 390, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2412 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290, 298-99 (1978)).

2017“Warrantless searches and seizures are unreasonable absent a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Wright, 391 S.C. 436, 442 , 706 S.E.2d 324, 327 (2011) (citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 386 , 390, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2412 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290, 298-99 (1978)).

2026See State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633-34, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022) (explaining appellate courts 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. Butler, 353 S.C. 383, 389 , 577 S.E.2d 498, 501 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The stopping of a vehicle and the detention of its occupants constitutes a seizure and implicates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures."); State v. German, 439 S.C. 449 , 461, 887 S.E.2d 912 , 918 (2023) ("A warrantless

2026See State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633-34, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022) (explaining appellate courts 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. Butler, 353 S.C. 383, 389 , 577 S.E.2d 498, 501 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The stopping of a vehicle and the detention of its occupants constitutes a seizure and implicates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures."); State v. German, 439 S.C. 449 , 461, 887 S.E.2d 912 , 918 (2023) ("A warrantless

2023See State v. Wright, 391 S.C. 436, 442 , 706 S.E.2d 324, 326 (2011) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." (quoting State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 557 , 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002))); State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 132 , 620 S.E.2d 737, 740 (2005) ("There are two historical rationales for the 'search incident to arrest' exception to the warrant requirement: (1) the need to disarm the suspect in order to take him into custody, and (2) the need to preserve evidence for later use at trial."); id. ("A warran

2023See State v. Wright, 391 S.C. 436, 442 , 706 S.E.2d 324, 326 (2011) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." (quoting State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 557 , 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002))); State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 132 , 620 S.E.2d 737, 740 (2005) ("There are two historical rationales for the 'search incident to arrest' exception to the warrant requirement: (1) the need to disarm the suspect in order to take him into custody, and (2) the need to preserve evidence for later use at trial."); id. ("A warran

2023This inquiry is fundamentally at odds with the 12 See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Myers, 164 A.3d 1162, 1173 (Pa. 2017) ("In recent years, a multitude of courts in our sister states have interpreted their respective—and similar—implied consent provisions and have concluded that the legislative proclamation that motorists are deemed to have consented to chemical tests is insufficient to establish the voluntariness of consent that is necessary to serve as an exception to the warrant requirement."); State v. Wulff, 337 P.3d 575, 581 (Idaho 2014) ("[I]rrevocable implied consent operates as a per se rul

2023Although the Wisconsin court considered the constitutionality of the incapacitated driver provision, 12 See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Myers, 164 A.3d 1162, 1173 (Pa. 2017) ("In recent years, a multitude of courts in our sister states have interpreted their respective—and similar—implied consent provisions and have concluded that the legislative proclamation that motorists are deemed to have consented to chemical tests is insufficient to establish the voluntariness of consent that is necessary to serve as an exception to the warrant requirement."); State v. Wulff, 337 P.3d 575, 581 (Idaho 2014) ("

2016See State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142 , 587 S.E.2d 691, 693 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge."). 23 presumptively unreasonable absent a recognized exception to the warrant requirement").

2016See State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142 , 587 S.E.2d 691, 693 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge."). 23 presumptively unreasonable absent a recognized exception to the warrant requirement").

2023Palacio v. State, 333 S.C. 506, 514 , 511 S.E.2d 62, 66 (1999) (citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967); United States v. Durades, 929 F.2d 1160 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. Zapata, 997 F.2d 751 (10th Cir. 1993)); see also Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (holding consent as an exception to the warrant requirement must be voluntarily 10 But see Mitchell, 139 S. Ct. at 2531 (recognizing exigent circumstances almost always allows a warrantless blood test). 11 Despite the State's insistence that section 56-5-2946 is constitutional as a search incident to an arrest, we

2023Palacio v. State, 333 S.C. 506, 514 , 511 S.E.2d 62, 66 (1999) (citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967); United States v. Durades, 929 F.2d 1160 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. Zapata, 997 F.2d 751 (10th Cir. 1993)); see also Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (holding consent as an exception to the warrant requirement must be voluntarily given).

2020See, e.g., State v. Bruce, 412 S.C. 504, 510 , 772 S.E.2d 753, 756 (2015); State v. Robinson, 410 S.C. 519, 530 , 765 S.E.2d 564, 570 (2014); State v. Gamble, 405 S.C. 409, 416 , 747 S.E.2d 784, 787 (2013); State v. Weaver, 374 S.C. 313, 319-20 , 649 S.E.2d 479, 482 (2007); State v. Brown, 289 S.C. 581, 587 , 347 S.E.2d 882, 885 (1986); State v. Huggins, 275 S.C. 229, 232 , 269 S.E.2d 334, 335 (1980).

2020See, e.g., State v. Bruce, 412 S.C. 504, 510 , 772 S.E.2d 753, 756 (2015); State v. Robinson, 410 S.C. 519, 530 , 765 S.E.2d 564, 570 (2014); State v. Gamble, 405 S.C. 409, 416 , 747 S.E.2d 784, 787 (2013); State v. Weaver, 374 S.C. 313, 319-20 , 649 S.E.2d 479, 482 (2007); State v. Brown, 289 S.C. 581, 587 , 347 S.E.2d 882, 885 (1986); State v. Huggins, 275 S.C. 229, 232 , 269 S.E.2d 334, 335 (1980).

2020See, e.g., Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 750 (1984) (stating "the burden is on the government to demonstrate exigent circumstances");3 McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 456 (1948) ("We cannot be true to that constitutional requirement and excuse the absence of a search warrant without a showing by those who seek exemption from the constitutional mandate that the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative."); United States v. McGee, 736 F.3d 263, 269 (4th Cir. 2013) ("The government bears the burden of proof in justifying a warrantless search or seizure.").4 3 See also W

2020See, e.g., Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 750 (1984) (stating "the burden is on the government to demonstrate exigent circumstances");3 McDonald v. 3 See also Welsh, 466 U.S. at 749-50 (emphasis added) (internal citation omitted) ("Prior decisions of this Court . . . have emphasized that exceptions to the warrant requirement are 'few in number and carefully delineated,' and that the police bear a heavy burden when attempting to demonstrate an urgent need that might justify United States, 335 U.S. 451, 456 (1948) ("We cannot be true to that constitutional requirement and excuse the absence o

2020See, e.g., Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 750 (1984) (stating "the burden is on the government to demonstrate exigent circumstances");3 McDonald v. 3 See also Welsh, 466 U.S. at 749-50 (emphasis added) (internal citation omitted) ("Prior decisions of this Court . . . have emphasized that exceptions to the warrant requirement are 'few in number and carefully delineated,' and that the police bear a heavy burden when attempting to demonstrate an urgent need that might justify United States, 335 U.S. 451, 456 (1948) ("We cannot be true to that constitutional requirement and excuse the absence o

2020See, e.g., Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 750 (1984) (stating "the burden is on the government to demonstrate exigent circumstances");3 McDonald v. 3 See also Welsh, 466 U.S. at 749-50 (emphasis added) (internal citation omitted) ("Prior decisions of this Court . . . have emphasized that exceptions to the warrant requirement are 'few in number and carefully delineated,' and that the police bear a heavy burden when attempting to demonstrate an urgent need that might justify United States, 335 U.S. 451, 456 (1948) ("We cannot be true to that constitutional requirement and excuse the absence o

2015The doctrine of abandonment, which our supreme court has recognized as an exception to the warrant requirement, provides “[abandoned property has no protection from either the search or seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Dupree, 319 S.C. 454, 457 , 462 S.E.2d 279, 281 (1995).

2015The doctrine of abandonment, which our supreme court has recognized as an exception to the warrant requirement, provides “[abandoned property has no protection from either the search or seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Dupree, 319 S.C. 454, 457 , 462 S.E.2d 279, 281 (1995).

2026See State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633-34, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022) (explaining appellate courts 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. Butler, 353 S.C. 383, 389 , 577 S.E.2d 498, 501 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The stopping of a vehicle and the detention of its occupants constitutes a seizure and implicates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures."); State v. German, 439 S.C. 449 , 461, 887 S.E.2d 912 , 918 (2023) ("A warrantless

2026See State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633-34, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022) (explaining appellate courts 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. Butler, 353 S.C. 383, 389 , 577 S.E.2d 498, 501 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The stopping of a vehicle and the detention of its occupants constitutes a seizure and implicates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures."); State v. German, 439 S.C. 449 , 461, 887 S.E.2d 912 , 918 (2023) ("A warrantless

2020This well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement may be invoked "when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment." McNeely, 569 U.S. at 148–49 (citing Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460 (2011)).

2017Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 1558 (2013) ("[A] warrantless search of the person is reasonable only if it falls within a recognized exception."); Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 452 (2011) ("The exception relevant to our analysis applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment."); McNeely at 1556 ("[T]he natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream does not present a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement f