State v. Drayton ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •            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.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Appellate Case 2015-000814; 27599

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 12/23/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024