79 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Baccusgreen2 sentences2022No. 35 at 12, 17) (explaining that appellate review of a motion to suppress based on Fourth Amendment grounds in South Carolina is a two-step analysis where 1) the trial court's factual findings are reviewed for any evidentiary support and 2) whether reasonable suspicion exists is a question of law subject to de novo review); State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("The trial [court's] factual findings on whether evidence should be suppressed due to a Fourth Amendment violation are reviewed for clear error."); State v. Butler, 353 S.C. 383, 388 , 577 S.E.2d 498, 500 (Ct. 2022No. 35 at 12, 17) (explaining that appellate review of a motion to suppress based on Fourth Amendment grounds in South Carolina is a two-step analysis where 1) the trial court's factual findings are reviewed for any evidentiary support and 2) whether reasonable suspicion exists is a question of law subject to de novo review); State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("The trial [court's] factual findings on whether evidence should be suppressed due to a Fourth Amendment violation are reviewed for clear error."); State v. Butler, 353 S.C. 383, 388 , 577 S.E.2d 498, 500 (Ct. | 10 | 12 |
State v. Brockmangreen2 sentences2013PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brockman, 339 S.C. 57, 66 , 528 S.E.2d 661, 666 (2000) (providing our appellate courts review Fourth Amendment determinations under a clear error standard and "will affirm if there is any evidence to support the ruling"); State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("The trial judge's factual findings on whether evidence should be suppressed due to a Fourth Amendment violation are reviewed for clear error."); State v. Pichardo, 367 S.C. 84, 98 , 623 S.E.2d 840, 847-48 (Ct. App. 2005) 2013PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brockman, 339 S.C. 57, 66 , 528 S.E.2d 661, 666 (2000) (providing our appellate courts review Fourth Amendment determinations under a clear error standard and "will affirm if there is any evidence to support the ruling"); State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("The trial judge's factual findings on whether evidence should be suppressed due to a Fourth Amendment violation are reviewed for clear error."); State v. Pichardo, 367 S.C. 84, 98 , 623 S.E.2d 840, 847-48 (Ct. App. 2005) | 8 | 8 |
State v. Corleygreen2 sentences2017"Moreover, a police officer's 'subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.'" State v. Vinson, 400 S.C. 347, 352 , 734 S.E.2d 182, 184 (Ct. App. 2012) (quoting State v. Corley, 383 S.C. 232, 241 , 679 S.E.2d 187, 192 (Ct. App. 2009)). 2017"Moreover, a police officer's 'subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.'" State v. Vinson, 400 S.C. 347, 352 , 734 S.E.2d 182, 184 (Ct. App. 2012) (quoting State v. Corley, 383 S.C. 232, 241 , 679 S.E.2d 187, 192 (Ct. App. 2009)). | 4 | 4 |
Whren v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2013Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.”) (quoting Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 , 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996) (internal brackets, ellipsis, and quotation marks omitted)). 2013Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.”) (quoting Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 , 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996) (internal brackets, ellipsis, and quotation marks omitted)). | 3 | 6 |
State v. Abdullahgreen2 sentences2019PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Cardwell, 414 S.C. 416, 424 , 778 S.E.2d 483, 487 (Ct. App. 2015) ("In criminal cases, this court sits to review errors of law only."); id. at 425 , 778 S.E.2d at 488 ("The court will only reverse the [trial] court's ruling on a motion to suppress when there is clear error."); State v. Khingratsaiphon, 352 S.C. 62, 70 , 572 S.E.2d 456, 459-60 (2002) (explaining that on appeal from a Fourth Amendment motion to suppress, an appellate court will only reverse the trial court if there is clear error and wil 2019PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Cardwell, 414 S.C. 416, 424 , 778 S.E.2d 483, 487 (Ct. App. 2015) ("In criminal cases, this court sits to review errors of law only."); id. at 425 , 778 S.E.2d at 488 ("The court will only reverse the [trial] court's ruling on a motion to suppress when there is clear error."); State v. Khingratsaiphon, 352 S.C. 62, 70 , 572 S.E.2d 456, 459-60 (2002) (explaining that on appeal from a Fourth Amendment motion to suppress, an appellate court will only reverse the trial court if there is clear error and wil | 3 | 4 |
Rakas v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences2018In any Fourth Amendment challenge, "defendants must show that they have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched." State v. Missouri , 361 S.C. 107 , 112, 603 S.E.2d 594 , 596 (2004) (citing Rakas v. Illinois , 439 U.S. 128 , 143, 99 S.Ct. 421 , 430, 58 L.Ed. 2d 387 , 401 (1978) ). 2018In any Fourth Amendment challenge, "defendants must show that they have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched." State v. Missouri , 361 S.C. 107 , 112, 603 S.E.2d 594 , 596 (2004) (citing Rakas v. Illinois , 439 U.S. 128 , 143, 99 S.Ct. 421 , 430, 58 L.Ed. 2d 387 , 401 (1978) ). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Khingratsaiphongreen2 sentences2019PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Cardwell, 414 S.C. 416, 424 , 778 S.E.2d 483, 487 (Ct. App. 2015) ("In criminal cases, this court sits to review errors of law only."); id. at 425 , 778 S.E.2d at 488 ("The court will only reverse the [trial] court's ruling on a motion to suppress when there is clear error."); State v. Khingratsaiphon, 352 S.C. 62, 70 , 572 S.E.2d 456, 459-60 (2002) (explaining that on appeal from a Fourth Amendment motion to suppress, an appellate court will only reverse the trial court if there is clear error and wil 2019PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Cardwell, 414 S.C. 416, 424 , 778 S.E.2d 483, 487 (Ct. App. 2015) ("In criminal cases, this court sits to review errors of law only."); id. at 425 , 778 S.E.2d at 488 ("The court will only reverse the [trial] court's ruling on a motion to suppress when there is clear error."); State v. Khingratsaiphon, 352 S.C. 62, 70 , 572 S.E.2d 456, 459-60 (2002) (explaining that on appeal from a Fourth Amendment motion to suppress, an appellate court will only reverse the trial court if there is clear error and wil | 3 | 3 |
State v. Cohengreen2 sentences2012As to whether the trial court erred in allowing the stolen camper's owner to testify regarding the stolen camper's VIN number: State v. Cohen, 305 S.C. 432, 434 , 409 S.E.2d 383, 384 (1991) ("The Fourth Amendment does not bar a search and seizure, even an arbitrary one, effected by a private party on his own initiative."); id. at 434 , 409 S.E.2d at 385 ("The party challenging admission of evidence has the burden to show sufficient government involvement in the private citizen's conduct to warrant [F]ourth [A]mendment scrutiny."); id. at 435 , 409 S.E.2d at 385 ("Even where the government enco 2012As to whether the trial court erred in allowing the stolen camper's owner to testify regarding the stolen camper's VIN number: State v. Cohen, 305 S.C. 432, 434 , 409 S.E.2d 383, 384 (1991) ("The Fourth Amendment does not bar a search and seizure, even an arbitrary one, effected by a private party on his own initiative."); id. at 434 , 409 S.E.2d at 385 ("The party challenging admission of evidence has the burden to show sufficient government involvement in the private citizen's conduct to warrant [F]ourth [A]mendment scrutiny."); id. at 435 , 409 S.E.2d at 385 ("Even where the government enco | 2 | 4 |
Ornelas v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2019PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Cardwell, 414 S.C. 416, 424 , 778 S.E.2d 483, 487 (Ct. App. 2015) ("In criminal cases, this court sits to review errors of law only."); id. at 425 , 778 S.E.2d at 488 ("The court will only reverse the [trial] court's ruling on a motion to suppress when there is clear error."); State v. Khingratsaiphon, 352 S.C. 62, 70 , 572 S.E.2d 456, 459-60 (2002) (explaining that on appeal from a Fourth Amendment motion to suppress, an appellate court will only reverse the trial court if there is clear error and wil 2013PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brockman, 339 S.C. 57, 66 , 528 S.E.2d 661, 666 (2000) (providing our appellate courts review Fourth Amendment determinations under a clear error standard and "will affirm if there is any evidence to support the ruling"); State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("The trial judge's factual findings on whether evidence should be suppressed due to a Fourth Amendment violation are reviewed for clear error."); State v. Pichardo, 367 S.C. 84, 98 , 623 S.E.2d 840, 847-48 (Ct. App. 2005) | 2 | 3 |
State v. Missourigreen2 sentences2018In any Fourth Amendment challenge, "defendants must show that they have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched." State v. Missouri , 361 S.C. 107 , 112, 603 S.E.2d 594 , 596 (2004) (citing Rakas v. Illinois , 439 U.S. 128 , 143, 99 S.Ct. 421 , 430, 58 L.Ed. 2d 387 , 401 (1978) ). 2018In any Fourth Amendment challenge, "defendants must show that they have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched." State v. Missouri , 361 S.C. 107 , 112, 603 S.E.2d 594 , 596 (2004) (citing Rakas v. Illinois , 439 U.S. 128 , 143, 99 S.Ct. 421 , 430, 58 L.Ed. 2d 387 , 401 (1978) ). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Vinsongreen2 sentences2017"Moreover, a police officer's 'subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.'" State v. Vinson, 400 S.C. 347, 352 , 734 S.E.2d 182, 184 (Ct. App. 2012) (quoting State v. Corley, 383 S.C. 232, 241 , 679 S.E.2d 187, 192 (Ct. App. 2009)). 2017"Moreover, a police officer's 'subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.'" State v. Vinson, 400 S.C. 347, 352 , 734 S.E.2d 182, 184 (Ct. App. 2012) (quoting State v. Corley, 383 S.C. 232, 241 , 679 S.E.2d 187, 192 (Ct. App. 2009)). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Butlergreen2 sentences2022No. 35 at 12, 17) (explaining that appellate review of a motion to suppress based on Fourth Amendment grounds in South Carolina is a two-step analysis where 1) the trial court's factual findings are reviewed for any evidentiary support and 2) whether reasonable suspicion exists is a question of law subject to de novo review); State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("The trial [court's] factual findings on whether evidence should be suppressed due to a Fourth Amendment violation are reviewed for clear error."); State v. Butler, 353 S.C. 383, 388 , 577 S.E.2d 498, 500 (Ct. 2022No. 35 at 12, 17) (explaining that appellate review of a motion to suppress based on Fourth Amendment grounds in South Carolina is a two-step analysis where 1) the trial court's factual findings are reviewed for any evidentiary support and 2) whether reasonable suspicion exists is a question of law subject to de novo review); State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("The trial [court's] factual findings on whether evidence should be suppressed due to a Fourth Amendment violation are reviewed for clear error."); State v. Butler, 353 S.C. 383, 388 , 577 S.E.2d 498, 500 (Ct. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Forrestergreen2 sentences2019PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Cardwell, 414 S.C. 416, 424 , 778 S.E.2d 483, 487 (Ct. App. 2015) ("In criminal cases, this court sits to review errors of law only."); id. at 425 , 778 S.E.2d at 488 ("The court will only reverse the [trial] court's ruling on a motion to suppress when there is clear error."); State v. Khingratsaiphon, 352 S.C. 62, 70 , 572 S.E.2d 456, 459-60 (2002) (explaining that on appeal from a Fourth Amendment motion to suppress, an appellate court will only reverse the trial court if there is clear error and wil 2019PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Cardwell, 414 S.C. 416, 424 , 778 S.E.2d 483, 487 (Ct. App. 2015) ("In criminal cases, this court sits to review errors of law only."); id. at 425 , 778 S.E.2d at 488 ("The court will only reverse the [trial] court's ruling on a motion to suppress when there is clear error."); State v. Khingratsaiphon, 352 S.C. 62, 70 , 572 S.E.2d 456, 459-60 (2002) (explaining that on appeal from a Fourth Amendment motion to suppress, an appellate court will only reverse the trial court if there is clear error and wil | 2 | 2 |
State v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2015Whether such an expectation of privacy has been abandoned “is determined on the basis of the objective facts available to the investigating officers, not on the basis of the owner’s subjective intent.” Tugwell, 125 F.3d at 602 ; see also State v. Taylor, 401 S.C. 104, 119 , 736 S.E.2d 663, 670-71 (2013) (“Whether a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred turns on an objective assessment of [an officer’s] actions in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him at the time....” (alteration by court) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2015Whether such an expectation of privacy has been abandoned “is determined on the basis of the objective facts available to the investigating officers, not on the basis of the owner’s subjective intent.” Tugwell, 125 F.3d at 602 ; see also State v. Taylor, 401 S.C. 104, 119 , 736 S.E.2d 663, 670-71 (2013) (“Whether a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred turns on an objective assessment of [an officer’s] actions in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him at the time....” (alteration by court) (internal quotation marks omitted)). | 2 | 2 |
Hutto v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Code Ann. § 24-21-290 (2007) ("All information and data obtained in the discharge of his official duty by a probation agent is privileged information, is not receivable as evidence in a court, and may not be disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone other than the judge or others entitled under this chapter to receive reports unless ordered by the court or the director."); State v. Baccus , 367 S.C. 41, 48 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("The trial [court]'s factual findings on whether evidence should be suppressed due to a Fourth Amendment violation are reviewed for clear error."); State v. St 2012Code Ann. § 24-21-290 (2007) ("All information and data obtained in the discharge of his official duty by a probation agent is privileged information, is not receivable as evidence in a court, and may not be disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone other than the judge or others entitled under this chapter to receive reports unless ordered by the court or the director."); State v. Baccus , 367 S.C. 41, 48 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("The trial [court]'s factual findings on whether evidence should be suppressed due to a Fourth Amendment violation are reviewed for clear error."); State v. St | 2 | 2 |
State v. Herringgreen2 sentences2016Generally, appellate courts will not set aside convictions due to insubstantial error not affecting the result." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Herring, 387 S.C. 201, 215-16 , 692 S.E.2d 490, 497 (2009) (finding that even if a search violated the Fourth Amendment the error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt). 2016Generally, appellate courts will not set aside convictions due to insubstantial error not affecting the result." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Herring, 387 S.C. 201, 215-16 , 692 S.E.2d 490, 497 (2009) (finding that even if a search violated the Fourth Amendment the error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Morrisgreen2 sentences2014PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Missouri, 361 S.C. 107, 111 , 603 S.E.2d 594, 596 (2004) ("When reviewing a Fourth Amendment search and seizure case, an appellate court must affirm the trial [court's] ruling if there is any evidence to support the ruling."); State v. Morris, 395 S.C. 600, 608 , 720 S.E.2d 468, 471 (Ct. App. 2011) ("The appellate court's task in reviewing the trial court's factual findings on a Fourth Amendment issue is simply to determine whether any evidence supports the trial court's findings."); State v. Provet, 4 2014PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Missouri, 361 S.C. 107, 111 , 603 S.E.2d 594, 596 (2004) ("When reviewing a Fourth Amendment search and seizure case, an appellate court must affirm the trial [court's] ruling if there is any evidence to support the ruling."); State v. Morris, 395 S.C. 600, 608 , 720 S.E.2d 468, 471 (Ct. App. 2011) ("The appellate court's task in reviewing the trial court's factual findings on a Fourth Amendment issue is simply to determine whether any evidence supports the trial court's findings."); State v. Provet, 4 | 2 | 2 |
State v. Asburygreen2 sentences2013See State v. Asbury, 328 S.C. 187, 193 , 493 S.E.2d 349, 352 (1997) (“In criminal cases, appellate courts are bound by fact findings in response to preliminary motions where there has been conflicting testimony or where the findings are supported by the evidence and not clearly wrong or controlled by an error of law.”); State v. Morris, 395 S.C. 600, 608 , 720 S.E.2d 468, 471 (Ct.App.2011) (“The appellate court’s task in reviewing the trial court’s factual findings on a Fourth Amendment issue is simply to determine whether any evidence supports the trial court’s findings.” (emphasis added)). 2013See State v. Asbury, 328 S.C. 187, 193 , 493 S.E.2d 349, 352 (1997) (“In criminal cases, appellate courts are bound by fact findings in response to preliminary motions where there has been conflicting testimony or where the findings are supported by the evidence and not clearly wrong or controlled by an error of law.”); State v. Morris, 395 S.C. 600, 608 , 720 S.E.2d 468, 471 (Ct.App.2011) (“The appellate court’s task in reviewing the trial court’s factual findings on a Fourth Amendment issue is simply to determine whether any evidence supports the trial court’s findings.” (emphasis added)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2006Wilson , 345 S.C. 1, 5-6 , 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001). The trial judges factual findings on whether evidence should be suppressed due to a Fourth Amendment violation are reviewed for clear error. State v. Baccus , 367 S.C. 41, 48 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006). A courts ruling on the admissibility of evidence will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion or the commission of legal error that results in prejudice to the defendant. State v. Adams , 354 S.C. 361, 377 , 580 S.E.2d 785, 793 (Ct. App. 2003). 2006Wilson , 345 S.C. 1, 5-6 , 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001). The trial judges factual findings on whether evidence should be suppressed due to a Fourth Amendment violation are reviewed for clear error. State v. Baccus , 367 S.C. 41, 48 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006). A courts ruling on the admissibility of evidence will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion or the commission of legal error that results in prejudice to the defendant. State v. Adams , 354 S.C. 361, 377 , 580 S.E.2d 785, 793 (Ct. App. 2003). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2006Wilson , 345 S.C. 1, 5-6 , 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001). The trial judges factual findings on whether evidence should be suppressed due to a Fourth Amendment violation are reviewed for clear error. State v. Baccus , 367 S.C. 41, 48 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006). A courts ruling on the admissibility of evidence will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion or the commission of legal error that results in prejudice to the defendant. State v. Adams , 354 S.C. 361, 377 , 580 S.E.2d 785, 793 (Ct. App. 2003). 2006Wilson , 345 S.C. 1, 5-6 , 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001). The trial judges factual findings on whether evidence should be suppressed due to a Fourth Amendment violation are reviewed for clear error. State v. Baccus , 367 S.C. 41, 48 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006). A courts ruling on the admissibility of evidence will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion or the commission of legal error that results in prejudice to the defendant. State v. Adams , 354 S.C. 361, 377 , 580 S.E.2d 785, 793 (Ct. App. 2003). | 2 | 2 |
State v. McKnightgreen2 sentences2004State v. McKnight, 291 S.C. 110, 114-15 , 352 S.E.2d 471, 473 (1987) (citing United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 , 100 S.Ct. 2547 , 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980)); see also Rakas, 439 U.S. at 138 , 99 S.Ct. 421 (“ ‘[R]ights assured by the Fourth Amendment are personal rights, [which] ... may be enforced by exclusion of evidence only at the instance of one whose own protection was infringed by the search and seizure.’ ”). 2004State v. McKnight, 291 S.C. 110, 114-15 , 352 S.E.2d 471, 473 (1987) (citing United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 , 100 S.Ct. 2547 , 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980)); see also Rakas, 439 U.S. at 138 , 99 S.Ct. 421 (“ ‘[R]ights assured by the Fourth Amendment are personal rights, [which] ... may be enforced by exclusion of evidence only at the instance of one whose own protection was infringed by the search and seizure.’ ”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bandagreen2 sentences2009Thus, the subjective intentions of an officer “play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.” Banda, 371 S.C. at 252 n. 3, 639 S.E.2d at 40 n. 3. 2009Thus, the subjective intentions of an officer “play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.” Banda, 371 S.C. at 252 n. 3, 639 S.E.2d at 40 n. 3. | 1 | 3 |
Herring v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2020See Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 140 (2009) ("The fact that a Fourth Amendment violation occurred—i.e., that a search or arrest was unreasonable—does not necessarily mean that the exclusionary rule applies."). 2020See Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 140 (2009) ("The fact that a Fourth Amendment violation occurred—i.e., that a search or arrest was unreasonable—does not necessarily mean that the exclusionary rule applies."). | 1 | 2 |
Davis v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2020"Indeed, exclusion has always been our last resort, not our first impulse." Id. (quoting Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 591 (2006)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Davis v United States, 564 U.S. 229, 237 (2011) (explaining suppression can be a harsh sanction, for it "exacts a heavy toll on both the judicial system and society at large"). 2020"Indeed, exclusion has always been our last resort, not our first impulse." Id. (quoting Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 591 (2006)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Davis v United States, 564 U.S. 229, 237 (2011) (explaining suppression can be a harsh sanction, for it "exacts a heavy toll on both the judicial system and society at large"). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Morrisgreen2 sentences2019PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Cardwell, 414 S.C. 416, 424 , 778 S.E.2d 483, 487 (Ct. App. 2015) ("In criminal cases, this court sits to review errors of law only."); id. at 425 , 778 S.E.2d at 488 ("The court will only reverse the [trial] court's ruling on a motion to suppress when there is clear error."); State v. Khingratsaiphon, 352 S.C. 62, 70 , 572 S.E.2d 456, 459-60 (2002) (explaining that on appeal from a Fourth Amendment motion to suppress, an appellate court will only reverse the trial court if there is clear error and wil 2019PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Cardwell, 414 S.C. 416, 424 , 778 S.E.2d 483, 487 (Ct. App. 2015) ("In criminal cases, this court sits to review errors of law only."); id. at 425 , 778 S.E.2d at 488 ("The court will only reverse the [trial] court's ruling on a motion to suppress when there is clear error."); State v. Khingratsaiphon, 352 S.C. 62, 70 , 572 S.E.2d 456, 459-60 (2002) (explaining that on appeal from a Fourth Amendment motion to suppress, an appellate court will only reverse the trial court if there is clear error and wil | 1 | 2 |
State v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2018PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); id. ("The trial [court]'s factual findings on whether evidence should be suppressed due to a Fourth Amendment violation are reviewed for clear error."); State v. Wright, 391 S.C. 436, 442 , 706 S.E.2d 324, 326 (2011) ("When reviewing a Fourth Amendment search and seizure case, an appellate court must affirm if there is any evidence to support the ruling."); Baccus, 367 S.C 2018PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); id. ("The trial [court]'s factual findings on whether evidence should be suppressed due to a Fourth Amendment violation are reviewed for clear error."); State v. Wright, 391 S.C. 436, 442 , 706 S.E.2d 324, 326 (2011) ("When reviewing a Fourth Amendment search and seizure case, an appellate court must affirm if there is any evidence to support the ruling."); Baccus, 367 S.C | 1 | 2 |
Kimmelman v. Morrisongreen2 sentences2015A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of trial." (citations omitted)); Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986) ("Where defense counsel's failure to litigate a Fourth Amendment claim competently is the principal allegation of ineffectiveness, the defendant must also prove that his Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious and that there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different absent the excludable evidence in order to demonstrate actual prejudice."); Underwood v. State, 309 S.C. 560, 562 , 405 S.E.2d 20, 22 2015A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of trial." (citations omitted)); Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986) ("Where defense counsel's failure to litigate a Fourth Amendment claim competently is the principal allegation of ineffectiveness, the defendant must also prove that his Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious and that there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different absent the excludable evidence in order to demonstrate actual prejudice."); Underwood v. State, 309 S.C. 560, 562 , 405 S.E.2d 20, 22 | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Brannongreen | 1 | 2 |
| United States v. Ramirezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hudson v. Michigangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Frisbie v. Collinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Katz v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wong Sun v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| California v. Ciraologreen | 1 | 1 |
| Nix v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Dobbinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Coopergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Cardwellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Robinson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Palacio v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Jones
green
2 sentences2014See Jardines, 133 S.Ct. at 1413 (stating that the criminal defendant was the homeowner); Jones, 132 S.Ct. at 949 n. 2 (stating that the criminal defendant’s wife owned the vehicle searched, that the criminal defendant was the exclusive driver of the vehicle, that the Government did not challenge the court of appeals' holding that "the vehicle registration did not affect his ability to make a Fourth Amendment objection,” and that the Supreme Court therefore refused to consider whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle). 20 . 2014Id. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz
green
2 sentences2012“But for purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis, the choice among such reasonable alternatives remains with the governmental officials who have a unique understanding of, and a responsibility for, limited public resources, including a finite number of police officers.” Id. at 453-54, 110 S.Ct. 2481 . 2008In ruling on the constitutionality of a suspicionless checkpoint in which police stopped every vehicle, the Sitz court noted that the case did not involve "a complete absence of empirical data." Id. at 454 However, the Supreme Court went on to hold that the second prong of the Brown test "was not meant to transfer from politically accountable officials to the courts the decision as to which among reasonable alternative law enforcement techniques should be employed to deal with a serious public danger" and that "for purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis... [this decision] remains with the gover | 2 | 2008–2012 |
| United States v. Salvucci green | 2 | 2002–2004 |
Graham v. Connor
green
2 sentences2004In Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 , 109 S.Ct. 1865 , 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989), the United States Supreme Court edifies: This case requires us to decide what constitutional standard governs a free citizens claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of his person. 2004In Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 , 109 S.Ct. 1865 , 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989), the United States Supreme Court edifies: This case requires us to decide what constitutional standard governs a free citizens claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of his person. | 2 | 2002–2004 |
| State v. Green green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Arizona v. Gant green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Cardwell green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Schmerber v. California green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Dykes green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| The State v. Hill green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Butler green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| In re Howe green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Adams green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Horton v. California green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Underwood v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Illinois v. Gates green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Miranda v. Arizona green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| United States v. Knotts green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| United States v. Karo green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| United States v. Martinez-Fuerte green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.