State v. Jamey Christopher Gilliam ( 2023 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
v.
Jamey Christopher Gilliam, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2020-000877
Appeal From Anderson County
R. Scott Sprouse, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-083
Submitted February 1, 2023 – Filed March 15, 2023
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia,
for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor David Rhys Wagner, Jr., of
Anderson, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Jamey Christopher Gilliam appeals his convictions for
possession of cocaine and possession of methamphetamine, and concurrent
sentences of three years' imprisonment, suspended upon the service of one year of
imprisonment and five years' probation. On appeal, Gilliam argues the trial court
erred by admitting drug evidence and his statement to police because they were
both fruit of an illegal search of his vehicle and a container within the car. He
contends the search incident to lawful arrest exception did not apply because the
fruits of the search were used to justify his arrest. We affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b), SCACR.
We hold the trial court did not err by denying Gilliam's motion to suppress the drug
evidence and his statement because the warrantless search qualified as a search
incident to lawful arrest. Law enforcement testified the following circumstances
gave rise to probable cause: (1) Gilliam's car was parked in an unusual way in a
high crime area; (2) the arresting officer heard loud noises indicating a dispute was
potentially occurring; (3) the officer observed an open container in plain view; and
(4) a glass pipe, commonly used to smoke illegal drugs, fell out of the car onto the
ground. Further, law enforcement testified Gilliam was arrested due to the totality
of the circumstances. See State v. Wright, 391 S.C. 436, 442, 706 S.E.2d 324, 326
(2011) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and
will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." (quoting State v. Gaster, 349
S.C. 545, 557, 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002))); State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 132,
620 S.E.2d 737, 740 (2005) ("There are two historical rationales for the 'search
incident to arrest' exception to the warrant requirement: (1) the need to disarm the
suspect in order to take him into custody, and (2) the need to preserve evidence for
later use at trial."); id. ("A warrantless search which precedes a formal arrest is
valid if the arrest quickly follows."); State v. Moultrie, 316 S.C. 547, 551, 451
S.E.2d 34, 37 (Ct. App. 1994) ("The fruits of such a search, however, cannot be
used to justify the arrest."); State v. Bultron, 318 S.C. 323, 332, 457 S.E.2d 616,
621 (Ct. App. 1995) (stating probable cause is "a justifiable determination, based
upon the totality of the circumstances and in view of all the evidence available to
law enforcement officials at the time of the search, that there exists a practical,
nontechnical probability that a crime is being committed or has been committed
and incriminating evidence is involved"). Additionally, we hold the search of the
car was valid pursuant to the automobile exception. See State v. Cox, 290 S.C.
489, 491, 351 S.E.2d 570, 571 (1986) ("The two bases for the [automobile]
exception are: (1) the ready mobility of automobiles and the potential that evidence
may be lost before a warrant is obtained; and (2) the lessened expectation of
privacy in motor vehicles which are subject to government regulation."); id. at 492,
351 S.E.2d at 571-72 ([U]nder the automobile exception, probable cause alone is
sufficient to justify a warrantless search.").
AFFIRMED. 1
THOMAS, MCDONALD, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.