Opinion ID: 2501596
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the circuit court erred in admitting evidence obtained as a result of Petitioner's traffic stop.

Text: Petitioner argues that the facts presented by police to the circuit court did not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion, and that he was unreasonably seized. Thus, according to Petitioner, his Fourth Amendment rights were violated, and this Court should reverse his conviction. We agree with Petitioner that the search incident to arrest in this case violated his Fourth Amendment rights. However, for reasons explained below, the exclusion remedy is unavailable to Petitioner, and thus his conviction will stand. In New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), the United States Supreme Court initially explained the constitutionally permissible scope of a search incident to arrest. In that case, police ordered the driver of a speeding vehicle to pull over to the side of the road and stop. Id. at 455, 101 S.Ct. 2860. The policeman asked to see the driver's license and automobile registration and simultaneously smelled burnt marijuana. Id. at 455-56, 101 S.Ct. 2860. The officer directed the occupants out of the car and conducted a pat down of the four men. Id. at 456, 101 S.Ct. 2860. The officer then conducted a search of the passenger compartment of the car, including a black leather jacket belonging to Belton. Id. He unzipped one of the pockets of the jacket and discovered cocaine. Id. Belton argued that the cocaine had been seized in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Belton, 453 U.S. at 456-57, 101 S.Ct. 2860. The Court stressed the need to provide a workable rule, and held that when a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile. Id. at 459-60, 101 S.Ct. 2860. The Court reasoned that the police should also be allowed to examine the contents of any containers found within the passenger compartment, for if the passenger compartment is within reach of the arrestee, so also will containers in it be within his reach. Id. at 460-61, 101 S.Ct. 2860 (citations omitted). In the instant case, the police stopped Petitioner as part of an ongoing drug investigation, but primarily because the license tags on his automobile were expired. The police officer asked Petitioner for his driver's license, and verified that Petitioner did not possess a valid driver's license. Thus, he arrested Petitioner, and police searched Petitioner's vehicle incident to that arrest. Petitioner challenged the search at trial. The circuit court judge initially expressed concern at the vehicle search following a mere traffic stop, but denied Petitioner's motion to suppress: It concerns me that the law enforcement in this case would risk this investigation by making a search under these circumstances without obtaining a search warrant. It would have been a very easy thing to do. There was just no reason that it needed to be done the way that they did it . . . . But after looking especially at the case of New York v. Belton , 433 [453] U.S. 454 [101 S.Ct. 2860], is [sic] the only thing that tips the scales in the State's favor in this case; and that is that a search may be made incident to an arrest of the passenger compartment of the vehicle, including containers located in the passenger compartment where the search incident to arrest even if the detainee has been arrested and removed from the vehicle. Petitioner's trial took place in 2007, two years prior to the United States Supreme Court's holding in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009). In Gant, the United States Supreme Court limited the expansive searches allowed by Belton. The Court noted that Belton had been widely understood to allow a vehicle search incident to arrest of a recent occupant even if there is no possibility the arrestee could gain access to the vehicle at the time of the search. Id. at 341, 129 S.Ct. at 1718. The Court found this reading incompatible with its previous decisions regarding the basic scope of searches incident to lawful custodial arrests. Id. at 342-44, 129 S.Ct. at 1719 (citation omitted). Therefore the Court held that police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle. Id. (citing Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615, 624-25, 124 S.Ct. 2127, 158 L.Ed.2d 905 (2004)). Newly announced rules of constitutional criminal procedure must apply retroactively to all cases, pending on direct review or not yet final, with no exception for cases in which a new rule constitutes a `clear break' with the past. Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987). Petitioner's conviction has not yet become final on direct review. Thus, Gant applies retroactively to this case, and Petitioner may invoke its rule of substantive Fourth Amendment law as a basis for seeking relief. However, our analysis of the instant case is further controlled by the United States Supreme Court's decision in Davis v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011). In Davis, the defendant was charged and convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm based on discovery of a revolver in a stopped automobile in which he was the only passenger. Id. at ___, 131 S.Ct. at 2425-26. During the pendency of Davis's appeal, the United States Supreme Court decided Gant. The Eleventh Circuit applied Gant 's new rule and held that the vehicle search incident to arrest violated Davis's Fourth Amendment rights. Id. at ___, 131 S.Ct. at 2426 (citation omitted). However, the court concluded that penalizing the arresting officer for following binding appellate court precedent would do nothing to deter Fourth Amendment violations. Id. (citing United States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1265-66 (2010)). The United States Supreme Court agreed, and reasoned that the acknowledged absence of police culpability doomed Davis's claim. Id. at ___, 131 S.Ct. at 2428. Police practices trigger the harsh sanction of exclusion only when they are deliberate enough to yield `meaningful deterrence' and culpable enough to be `worth the price paid by the justice system.' Id. (citing Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 144, 129 S.Ct. 695, 172 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009)). Excluding evidence in cases where the constable has scrupulously adhered to governing law deters no police conduct and imposes substantial social costs. Davis, ___ U.S. at ___, 131 S.Ct. at 2434. Thus, the Court held that when the police conduct a search in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent, the exclusionary rule does not apply. Id. In the instant case, the search incident to arrest violated Petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights pursuant to Gant. However, excluding the evidence against Petitioner would not deter police misconduct because the police in this instance conducted a search incident to arrest pursuant to binding appellate precedent. See id. at ___, 131 S.Ct. at 2426-28. Moreover, exclusion of the evidence in this case would result in severe social costs, including the articulation of an inexplicable and undecipherable message to law enforcement regarding how to conduct a legal search. The protection of the Fourth Amendment can only be realized if the police are acting under a set of rules which make it possible to reach a correct determination beforehand as to whether an invasion of privacy is justified in the interest of law enforcement. Wayne R. LaFave, Case-By-Case Adjudication Versus Standardized Procedures: The Robinson Dilemma, 1974 Sup.Ct. Rev. 127, 142 (1974). This Court will only reverse the circuit court's decision on a motion to suppress when there is clear error. State v. Tindall, 388 S.C. 518, 520, 698 S.E.2d 203, 205 (2010). The circuit court in this case applied the established law to a search executed pursuant to binding precedent. Thus, Davis v. United States , and our own standard of review, commands that the circuit court's decision be affirmed. [2]