Court Opinion

ID: 9719485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:54:10.8635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:07.719806
License: Public Domain

LOCKEMY, J.
I agree with the majority that the State’s exercise of its prosecutorial discretion is “troublesome” to say the least. However, I respectfully dissent because I believe the search of Geer’s mouth violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against an unreasonable search. The only fact available to Officer Byrd indicating a search of Geer’s mouth would reveal relevant material evidence was Parks’s mere assertion that Geer had placed drugs in her mouth, which he made after previously lying to Officer Byrd. I would hold this sole assertion from someone with doubtful veracity is insufficient to establish a clear indication drugs would be found in Geer’s orifice to support a search. U.S. Const, amend. IV; S.C. Const, art. I, § 10; see State v. Dupree, 319 S.C. 454, 459, 462 S.E.2d 279, 282 (1995) (finding a clear indication drugs would be found in Dupree’s mouth existed where officers observed Dupree standing in a laundromat known for drug activity, *201holding what the they believed were drugs, placing his hand to his mouth and attempting to leave through the back door). As in Dwpree, I believe more facts are necessary to establish a clear indication.