Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
20 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2023–2026 20 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. Michael N. Frasier, Jr.green2 sentences2026We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022) ("[A]ppellate review of a motion to suppress based on the Fourth Amendment involves a two-step analysis."); id. at 633-34 , 879 S.E.2d at 766 ("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. Crummey, 443 S.C. 94 , 107, 902 S.E.2d 391 , 398 (Ct. App. 2024) ("A search or seizure is reasonable under the Fourth A 2026We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022) ("[A]ppellate review of a motion to suppress based on the Fourth Amendment involves a two-step analysis."); id. at 633-34 , 879 S.E.2d at 766 ("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. Crummey, 443 S.C. 94 , 107, 902 S.E.2d 391 , 398 (Ct. App. 2024) ("A search or seizure is reasonable under the Fourth A | 5 | 17 |
State v. Baccusgreen2 sentences2024This 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. Davis, 354 S.C. 348, 355 , 580 S.E.2d 778, 782 (Ct. App. 2003) (explaining that "[a] reviewing court should give great deference to a magistrate's determination of probable cause"); State v. Rodriquez, 323 S.C. 484, 490 , 476 S.E.2d 161, 165 (Ct. App. 1996) ("Generally, police seizures are per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless such seizures are accomplished pursuant t 2024This 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. Davis, 354 S.C. 348, 355 , 580 S.E.2d 778, 782 (Ct. App. 2003) (explaining that "[a] reviewing court should give great deference to a magistrate's determination of probable cause"); State v. Rodriquez, 323 S.C. 484, 490 , 476 S.E.2d 161, 165 (Ct. App. 1996) ("Generally, police seizures are per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless such seizures are accomplished pursuant t | 2 | 2 |
State v. Dillgreen2 sentences2026We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022) ("[A]ppellate review of a motion to suppress based on the Fourth Amendment involves a two-step analysis."); id. at 633-34 , 879 S.E.2d at 766 ("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. Crummey, 443 S.C. 94 , 107, 902 S.E.2d 391 , 398 (Ct. App. 2024) ("A search or seizure is reasonable under the Fourth A 2026We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022) ("[A]ppellate review of a motion to suppress based on the Fourth Amendment involves a two-step analysis."); id. at 633-34 , 879 S.E.2d at 766 ("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. Crummey, 443 S.C. 94 , 107, 902 S.E.2d 391 , 398 (Ct. App. 2024) ("A search or seizure is reasonable under the Fourth A | 2 | 2 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2024This 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. Davis, 354 S.C. 348, 355 , 580 S.E.2d 778, 782 (Ct. App. 2003) (explaining that "[a] reviewing court should give great deference to a magistrate's determination of probable cause"); State v. Rodriquez, 323 S.C. 484, 490 , 476 S.E.2d 161, 165 (Ct. App. 1996) ("Generally, police seizures are per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless such seizures are accomplished pursuant t 2024This 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. Davis, 354 S.C. 348, 355 , 580 S.E.2d 778, 782 (Ct. App. 2003) (explaining that "[a] reviewing court should give great deference to a magistrate's determination of probable cause"); State v. Rodriquez, 323 S.C. 484, 490 , 476 S.E.2d 161, 165 (Ct. App. 1996) ("Generally, police seizures are per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless such seizures are accomplished pursuant t | 2 | 2 |
State v. Rodriquezgreen2 sentences2024This 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. Davis, 354 S.C. 348, 355 , 580 S.E.2d 778, 782 (Ct. App. 2003) (explaining that "[a] reviewing court should give great deference to a magistrate's determination of probable cause"); State v. Rodriquez, 323 S.C. 484, 490 , 476 S.E.2d 161, 165 (Ct. App. 1996) ("Generally, police seizures are per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless such seizures are accomplished pursuant t 2024This 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. Davis, 354 S.C. 348, 355 , 580 S.E.2d 778, 782 (Ct. App. 2003) (explaining that "[a] reviewing court should give great deference to a magistrate's determination of probable cause"); State v. Rodriquez, 323 S.C. 484, 490 , 476 S.E.2d 161, 165 (Ct. App. 1996) ("Generally, police seizures are per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless such seizures are accomplished pursuant t | 2 | 2 |
Curtis v. Stategreen2 sentences2023"This Court has a limited scope of review in cases involving a constitutional challenge to a statute because all statutes are presumed constitutional and, if possible, will be construed to render them valid." Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 569 , 549 S.E.2d 591, 597 (2001). 2023"This Court has a limited scope of review in cases involving a constitutional challenge to a statute because all statutes are presumed constitutional and, if possible, will be construed to render them valid." Curtis v. State, 345 S.C. 557, 569 , 549 S.E.2d 591, 597 (2001). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Khingratsaiphongreen2 sentences2026Evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded from trial." (quoting State v. Khingratsaiphon, 352 S.C. 62, 69 , 572 S.E.2d 456, 459 (2002))); id. ("A search or seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when it is authorized by a warrant that is supported by probable cause."); State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 50 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 221 (2006) ("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 2026Evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded from trial." (quoting State v. Khingratsaiphon, 352 S.C. 62, 69 , 572 S.E.2d 456, 459 (2002))); id. ("A search or seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when it is authorized by a warrant that is supported by probable cause."); State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 50 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 221 (2006) ("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 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kinlochgreen2 sentences2026Evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded from trial." (quoting State v. Khingratsaiphon, 352 S.C. 62, 69 , 572 S.E.2d 456, 459 (2002))); id. ("A search or seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when it is authorized by a warrant that is supported by probable cause."); State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 50 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 221 (2006) ("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 2026Evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded from trial." (quoting State v. Khingratsaiphon, 352 S.C. 62, 69 , 572 S.E.2d 456, 459 (2002))); id. ("A search or seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when it is authorized by a warrant that is supported by probable cause."); State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 50 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 221 (2006) ("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 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2026Evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded from trial." (quoting State v. Khingratsaiphon, 352 S.C. 62, 69 , 572 S.E.2d 456, 459 (2002))); id. ("A search or seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when it is authorized by a warrant that is supported by probable cause."); State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 50 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 221 (2006) ("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 2026Evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded from trial." (quoting State v. Khingratsaiphon, 352 S.C. 62, 69 , 572 S.E.2d 456, 459 (2002))); id. ("A search or seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when it is authorized by a warrant that is supported by probable cause."); State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 50 , 625 S.E.2d 216, 221 (2006) ("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 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2026We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022) ("[A]ppellate review of a motion to suppress based on the Fourth Amendment involves a two-step analysis."); id. at 633-34 , 879 S.E.2d at 766 ("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. Crummey, 443 S.C. 94 , 107, 902 S.E.2d 391 , 398 (Ct. App. 2024) ("A search or seizure is reasonable under the Fourth A 2026We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022) ("[A]ppellate review of a motion to suppress based on the Fourth Amendment involves a two-step analysis."); id. at 633-34 , 879 S.E.2d at 766 ("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. Crummey, 443 S.C. 94 , 107, 902 S.E.2d 391 , 398 (Ct. App. 2024) ("A search or seizure is reasonable under the Fourth A | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lawtongreen2 sentences2026The appellate court analyzes the trial court's ruling regarding alleged discovery violations "under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Lawton, 382 S.C. 122, 127 , 675 S.E.2d 454, 457 (Ct. App. 2009). 2026The appellate court analyzes the trial court's ruling regarding alleged discovery violations "under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Lawton, 382 S.C. 122, 127 , 675 S.E.2d 454, 457 (Ct. App. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Vickerygreen2 sentences2026"The Fourth Amendment guarantees a person the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures." State v. Vickery, 399 S.C. 507, 514-15 , 732 S.E.2d 218, 221 (Ct. App. 2012) (citing U.S. Const. amend. 2026"The Fourth Amendment guarantees a person the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures." State v. Vickery, 399 S.C. 507, 514-15 , 732 S.E.2d 218, 221 (Ct. App. 2012) (citing U.S. Const. amend. | 1 | 1 |
Illinois v. Gatesgreen1 sentence2024This 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. Davis, 354 S.C. 348, 355 , 580 S.E.2d 778, 782 (Ct. App. 2003) (explaining that "[a] reviewing court should give great deference to a magistrate's determination of probable cause"); State v. Rodriquez, 323 S.C. 484, 490 , 476 S.E.2d 161, 165 (Ct. App. 1996) ("Generally, police seizures are per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless such seizures are accomplished pursuant t | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chisholmgreen2 sentences2024Code Ann. § 17-13-140 (2014) (explaining that in South Carolina, search warrants may be issued "only upon affidavit sworn to before the magistrate . . . establishing the grounds for the warrant"); State v. Chisholm, 395 S.C. 259, 267 , 717 S.E.2d 614, 618 (Ct. App. 2011) ("Considerations for determining whether or not there exists probable cause to permit the acquisition of [DNA] 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 2024Code Ann. § 17-13-140 (2014) (explaining that in South Carolina, search warrants may be issued "only upon affidavit sworn to before the magistrate . . . establishing the grounds for the warrant"); State v. Chisholm, 395 S.C. 259, 267 , 717 S.E.2d 614, 618 (Ct. App. 2011) ("Considerations for determining whether or not there exists probable cause to permit the acquisition of [DNA] 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 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Andersongreen1 sentence2023See State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022), reh'g denied (Nov. 17, 2022) ("[A]ppellate review of a motion to suppress based on the Fourth Amendment involves a two-step analysis."); id. at 633-34 , 879 S.E.2d at 766 ("This dual inquiry means we review the trial court's factual findings for any evidentiary support, but the ultimate legal conclusion—in this case whether reasonable suspicion exists—is a question of law subject to de novo review."); Milledge v. State, 422 S.C. 366, 376 , 811 S.E.2d 796, 802 (2018) ("A police officer's assessment of the circumstances may i | 1 | 1 |
Milledge v. Stategreen2 sentences2023See State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022), reh'g denied (Nov. 17, 2022) ("[A]ppellate review of a motion to suppress based on the Fourth Amendment involves a two-step analysis."); id. at 633-34 , 879 S.E.2d at 766 ("This dual inquiry means we review the trial court's factual findings for any evidentiary support, but the ultimate legal conclusion—in this case whether reasonable suspicion exists—is a question of law subject to de novo review."); Milledge v. State, 422 S.C. 366, 376 , 811 S.E.2d 796, 802 (2018) ("A police officer's assessment of the circumstances may i 2023See State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022), reh'g denied (Nov. 17, 2022) ("[A]ppellate review of a motion to suppress based on the Fourth Amendment involves a two-step analysis."); id. at 633-34 , 879 S.E.2d at 766 ("This dual inquiry means we review the trial court's factual findings for any evidentiary support, but the ultimate legal conclusion—in this case whether reasonable suspicion exists—is a question of law subject to de novo review."); Milledge v. State, 422 S.C. 366, 376 , 811 S.E.2d 796, 802 (2018) ("A police officer's assessment of the circumstances may i | 1 | 1 |
State v. Keithgreen2 sentences2023This 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. Davis, 354 S.C. 348, 355 , 580 S.E.2d 778, 782 (Ct. App. 2003) (explaining that a reviewing court should give great deference to a magistrate's determination of probable cause); State v. Rodriquez, 323 S.C. 484, 490 , 476 S.E.2d 161, 165 (Ct. App. 1996) ("Generally, police seizures are per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless such seizures are accomplished pursuant to ju 2023This 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. Davis, 354 S.C. 348, 355 , 580 S.E.2d 778, 782 (Ct. App. 2003) (explaining that a reviewing court should give great deference to a magistrate's determination of probable cause); State v. Rodriquez, 323 S.C. 484, 490 , 476 S.E.2d 161, 165 (Ct. App. 1996) ("Generally, police seizures are per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless such seizures are accomplished pursuant to ju | 1 | 1 |
State v. Woodruffgreen2 sentences2023See State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022) ("[A]ppellate review of a motion to suppress based on the Fourth Amendment involves a two-step analysis."); id. at 633-34 , 879 S.E.2d at 766 ("This dual inquiry means we review the trial court's factual findings for any evidentiary support, but the ultimate legal conclusion—in this case whether reasonable suspicion exists—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 seiz 2023See State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022) ("[A]ppellate review of a motion to suppress based on the Fourth Amendment involves a two-step analysis."); id. at 633-34 , 879 S.E.2d at 766 ("This dual inquiry means we review the trial court's factual findings for any evidentiary support, but the ultimate legal conclusion—in this case whether reasonable suspicion exists—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 seiz | 1 | 1 |
State v. Butlergreen2 sentences2023See State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022) ("[A]ppellate review of a motion to suppress based on the Fourth Amendment involves a two-step analysis."); id. at 633-34 , 879 S.E.2d at 766 ("This dual inquiry means we review the trial court's factual findings for any evidentiary support, but the ultimate legal conclusion—in this case whether reasonable suspicion exists—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 seiz 2023See State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022) ("[A]ppellate review of a motion to suppress based on the Fourth Amendment involves a two-step analysis."); id. at 633-34 , 879 S.E.2d at 766 ("This dual inquiry means we review the trial court's factual findings for any evidentiary support, but the ultimate legal conclusion—in this case whether reasonable suspicion exists—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 seiz | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2023This 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. Davis, 354 S.C. 348, 355 , 580 S.E.2d 778, 782 (Ct. App. 2003) (explaining that a reviewing court should give great deference to a magistrate's determination of probable cause); State v. Rodriquez, 323 S.C. 484, 490 , 476 S.E.2d 161, 165 (Ct. App. 1996) ("Generally, police seizures are per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless such seizures are accomplished pursuant to ju 2023This 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. Davis, 354 S.C. 348, 355 , 580 S.E.2d 778, 782 (Ct. App. 2003) (explaining that a reviewing court should give great deference to a magistrate's determination of probable cause); State v. Rodriquez, 323 S.C. 484, 490 , 476 S.E.2d 161, 165 (Ct. App. 1996) ("Generally, police seizures are per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless such seizures are accomplished pursuant to ju | 1 | 1 |
State v. Scottgreen2 sentences2023This 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. Davis, 354 S.C. 348, 355 , 580 S.E.2d 778, 782 (Ct. App. 2003) (explaining that a reviewing court should give great deference to a magistrate's determination of probable cause); State v. Rodriquez, 323 S.C. 484, 490 , 476 S.E.2d 161, 165 (Ct. App. 1996) ("Generally, police seizures are per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless such seizures are accomplished pursuant to ju 2023This 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. Davis, 354 S.C. 348, 355 , 580 S.E.2d 778, 782 (Ct. App. 2003) (explaining that a reviewing court should give great deference to a magistrate's determination of probable cause); State v. Rodriquez, 323 S.C. 484, 490 , 476 S.E.2d 161, 165 (Ct. App. 1996) ("Generally, police seizures are per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless such seizures are accomplished pursuant to ju | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cornsgreen2 sentences2023This 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. Davis, 354 S.C. 348, 355 , 580 S.E.2d 778, 782 (Ct. App. 2003) (explaining that a reviewing court should give great deference to a magistrate's determination of probable cause); State v. Rodriquez, 323 S.C. 484, 490 , 476 S.E.2d 161, 165 (Ct. App. 1996) ("Generally, police seizures are per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless such seizures are accomplished pursuant to ju 2023This 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. Davis, 354 S.C. 348, 355 , 580 S.E.2d 778, 782 (Ct. App. 2003) (explaining that a reviewing court should give great deference to a magistrate's determination of probable cause); State v. Rodriquez, 323 S.C. 484, 490 , 476 S.E.2d 161, 165 (Ct. App. 1996) ("Generally, police seizures are per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless such seizures are accomplished pursuant to ju | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dupreegreen2 sentences2023This 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. Davis, 354 S.C. 348, 355 , 580 S.E.2d 778, 782 (Ct. App. 2003) (explaining that a reviewing court should give great deference to a magistrate's determination of probable cause); State v. Rodriquez, 323 S.C. 484, 490 , 476 S.E.2d 161, 165 (Ct. App. 1996) ("Generally, police seizures are per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless such seizures are accomplished pursuant to ju 2023This 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. Davis, 354 S.C. 348, 355 , 580 S.E.2d 778, 782 (Ct. App. 2003) (explaining that a reviewing court should give great deference to a magistrate's determination of probable cause); State v. Rodriquez, 323 S.C. 484, 490 , 476 S.E.2d 161, 165 (Ct. App. 1996) ("Generally, police seizures are per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless such seizures are accomplished pursuant to ju | 1 | 1 |
State v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2023See State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022), reh'g denied (Nov. 17, 2022) ("[A]ppellate review of a motion to suppress based on the Fourth Amendment involves a two-step analysis."); id. at 633-34 , 879 S.E.2d at 766 ("This dual inquiry means we review the trial court's factual findings for any evidentiary support, but the ultimate legal conclusion—in this case whether reasonable suspicion exists—is a question of law subject to de novo review."); Milledge v. State, 422 S.C. 366, 376 , 811 S.E.2d 796, 802 (2018) ("A police officer's assessment of the circumstances may i 2023See State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022), reh'g denied (Nov. 17, 2022) ("[A]ppellate review of a motion to suppress based on the Fourth Amendment involves a two-step analysis."); id. at 633-34 , 879 S.E.2d at 766 ("This dual inquiry means we review the trial court's factual findings for any evidentiary support, but the ultimate legal conclusion—in this case whether reasonable suspicion exists—is a question of law subject to de novo review."); Milledge v. State, 422 S.C. 366, 376 , 811 S.E.2d 796, 802 (2018) ("A police officer's assessment of the circumstances may i | 1 | 1 |
State v. Provetgreen2 sentences2023See State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022) ("[A]ppellate review of a motion to suppress based on the Fourth Amendment involves a two-step analysis."); id. at 633-34 , 879 S.E.2d at 766 ("This dual inquiry means we review the trial court's factual findings for any evidentiary support, but the ultimate legal conclusion—in this case whether reasonable suspicion exists—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 seiz 2023See State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022) ("[A]ppellate review of a motion to suppress based on the Fourth Amendment involves a two-step analysis."); id. at 633-34 , 879 S.E.2d at 766 ("This dual inquiry means we review the trial court's factual findings for any evidentiary support, but the ultimate legal conclusion—in this case whether reasonable suspicion exists—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 seiz | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Cortezgreen1 sentence2023See State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022), reh'g denied (Nov. 17, 2022) ("[A]ppellate review of a motion to suppress based on the Fourth Amendment involves a two-step analysis."); id. at 633-34 , 879 S.E.2d at 766 ("This dual inquiry means we review the trial court's factual findings for any evidentiary support, but the ultimate legal conclusion—in this case whether reasonable suspicion exists—is a question of law subject to de novo review."); Milledge v. State, 422 S.C. 366, 376 , 811 S.E.2d 796, 802 (2018) ("A police officer's assessment of the circumstances may i | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Daquan J. Crummey
green
2 sentences2026We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022) ("[A]ppellate review of a motion to suppress based on the Fourth Amendment involves a two-step analysis."); id. at 633-34 , 879 S.E.2d at 766 ("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. Crummey, 443 S.C. 94 , 107, 902 S.E.2d 391 , 398 (Ct. App. 2024) ("A search or seizure is reasonable under the Fourth A 2026We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625 , 633, 879 S.E.2d 762 , 766 (2022) ("[A]ppellate review of a motion to suppress based on the Fourth Amendment involves a two-step analysis."); id. at 633-34 , 879 S.E.2d at 766 ("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. Crummey, 443 S.C. 94 , 107, 902 S.E.2d 391 , 398 (Ct. App. 2024) ("A search or seizure is reasonable under the Fourth A | 1 | 2026–2026 |
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.