THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

The State, Respondent, 

v. 

Darryl L. Drayton, Petitioner. 

Appellate Case No. 2015-000814 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 

Appeal From Charleston County 

The Honorable J. C. Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge 

Opinion No. 27599 

Submitted December 7, 2015 – Filed December 23, 2015 

VACATED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN RESULT 

Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia, 

for Petitioner. 

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy 

Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant 

Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General W. Edgar Salter, III, all of 

Columbia, and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of 

Charleston, all for Respondent. 
 

PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to review the Court of 

Appeals' opinion in State v. Drayton, 411 S.C. 533, 769 S.E.2d 254 (Ct. App. 

2015). We grant the petition as to Questions I and II, dispense with further 

briefing, vacate the portion of the Court of Appeals' opinion addressing petitioner's 

expectation of privacy in his historical cell site location data (HCSLD), and affirm

in result. We deny the petition as to Question III. 

Petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced to life without parole. Prior to 

trial, petitioner moved to suppress evidence of his HCSLD on the ground that the 

affidavits in support of the search warrants did not establish probable cause. 

During the hearing on the motion, arguments were presented as to whether 

petitioner had a privacy interest in the information obtained. The State argued no 

search occurred, but, regardless, petitioner did not have a privacy interest in the 

records. 

The trial judge denied the motion to suppress, finding, in relevant part, that 

petitioner did not have a privacy interest in the records. The judge applied the 

Federal Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C.A. 2703 (2015) by analogy, 

construed the warrants as court orders, found the orders were supported by 

"reasonable grounds," and determined probable cause was not required. Based on 

his ruling, the judge did not address whether the affidavits in support of the search 

warrants established probable cause. 

The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, finding, as a 

matter of first impression, petitioner did not have an expectation of privacy in the 

records pursuant to the Fourth Amendment because the SCA does not require 

probable cause and the federal courts have not found that the SCA implicates the 

Fourth Amendment.

The Court of Appeals further found, as a matter of first impression, petitioner did 

not have an expectation of privacy in the records under the South Carolina 

Constitution because the evidence sought in this case was not obtained via 

electronic surveillance, but was sought as a business record. The court relied on 

"federal precedent" to determine petitioner did not have a reasonable expectation 

of privacy in his HCSLD because he voluntarily contracted with Verizon, thereby 

conveying his HCSLD to Verizon which created records in the ordinary course of 

business. The court concluded the trial judge properly construed the warrant as a 

court order and applied a "reasonable grounds" test. Because the court's findings 

regarding privacy were dispositive, the court did not address whether the affidavits 

in support of the warrants established probable cause. 
We find the Court of Appeals erred in reaching the novel issue of whether 

petitioner had an expectation of privacy in his HCSLD because, in view of the 

totality of the circumstances, the affidavits in support of the warrants established 

probable cause for the search. See S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-140 (2014) (stating, in 

part, a search warrant may be issued to search for and seize property tending to 

show that a particular person committed a criminal offense); State v. Jones, 342 

S.C. 121, 126, 536 S.E.2d 675, 678 (2000) ("When reviewing a magistrate's

decision to issue a search warrant, we must consider the totality of the 

circumstances."). Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the Court of Appeals'

opinion.

Further, any error in the issuance of the warrants was harmless because petitioner's 

guilt was conclusively established by other competent evidence at trial, such that 

no other rational conclusion could have been reached. See State v. Livingston, 282 

S.C. 1, 6, 317 S.E.2d 129, 132 (1984); ("[W]here guilt is conclusively proven by 

competent evidence and no rational conclusion can be reached other than the 

accused is guilty, a conviction will not be set aside because of insubstantial errors 

not affecting the result."); see also State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 625 S.E.2d 216 

(2006) (employing a harmless error analysis in the case of a defective search 

warrant). Accordingly, we affirm petitioner's conviction and sentence. 

VACATED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN RESULT 

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., 

concur.