State v. Jerome Smith ( 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.
Jerome Smith, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2021-000788
Appeal From Lexington County
Walton J. McLeod, IV, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-343
Submitted October 1, 2023 – Filed October 25, 2023
AFFIRMED
Benjamin Allen Stitely and Jason Thomas Yonge, both of
Williams, Stitely & Brink, PC, of Lexington, for
Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Ambree Michele Muller, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard, III, of
Lexington, all for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Jerome Smith appeals his conviction for trafficking in heroin and
sentence of twenty-five years' imprisonment. Smith argues the trial court erred in
denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his home because the search
warrant used stale information and lacked a sufficient nexus between the heroin
sought and Smith's apartment. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.
SLED agents watched Smith leave his apartment, followed him to a local store,
and watched a man get in and then subsequently out of Smith's van. Agents
discovered heroin in that man's possession, and he informed agents that Smith sold
him heroin that day and on numerous previous occasions. After providing this
information in an affidavit to a magistrate, the agents obtained a search warrant to
search Smith's apartment for drugs. The totality of the circumstances of the facts
set forth in the affidavit establish a fair probability that contraband or evidence of
the sale of heroin would have been found in Smith's apartment. See State v.
Frasier, 437 S.C. 625, 633-34, 879 S.E.2d 762, 766 (2022) ("[A]ppellate review of
a motion to suppress based on the Fourth Amendment involves a two-step analysis.
This dual inquiry means we review the trial court's factual findings for any
evidentiary support, but the ultimate legal conclusion . . . is a question of law
subject to de novo review."); State v. Davis, 354 S.C. 348, 355, 580 S.E.2d 778,
782 (Ct. App. 2003) (explaining that a reviewing court should give great deference
to a magistrate's determination of probable cause); State v. Rodriquez, 323 S.C.
484, 490, 476 S.E.2d 161, 165 (Ct. App. 1996) ("Generally, police seizures are per
se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless such seizures
are accomplished pursuant to judicial warrants issued upon probable cause."); State
v. Dupree, 354 S.C. 676, 685, 583 S.E.2d 437, 442 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The
magistrate's task in determining whether to issue a search warrant is to make a
practical, common sense decision concerning whether, under the totality of the
circumstances set forth in the affidavit, . . . there is a fair probability that
contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in the particular place to be
searched."); State v. Thompson, 419 S.C. 250, 257, 797 S.E.2d 716, 719 (2017) ("If
no supplemental oral testimony is taken, an issuing judge's probable cause
determination is limited to the four corners of the search warrant affidavit."); State
v. Corns, 310 S.C. 546, 550, 426 S.E.2d 324, 326 (Ct. App. 1992) ("It is true that a
probable cause affidavit must state facts so closely related to the time of the
issuance of the warrant as to justify a finding of probable cause at that time.");
Thompson, 419 S.C. at 257, 797 S.E.2d at 719-20 ("The appellate courts of this
state have routinely held that information contained in an affidavit providing a
timely and direct nexus between the contraband sought and the location to be
searched—e.g., inter alia, specific details of surveillance of a suspect conducting a
drug transaction immediately upon leaving a residence—is sufficient to support a
search warrant."); State v. Scott, 303 S.C. 360, 362-63, 400 S.E.2d 784, 785-86 (Ct.
App. 1991) (upholding search warrant of defendant's home when affidavit stated
officers had visual contact with defendant from time he left his residence until the
time of the traffic stop and drugs were uncovered on defendant at stop); State v.
Keith, 356 S.C. 219, 225, 588 S.E.2d 145, 148 (Ct. App. 2003) (affirming decision
of trial court to admit drug evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant for
defendant's residence where the following facts established probable cause:
informants' tips regarding drug transactions at the defendant's home; surveillance
by law enforcement; and a traffic stop of the defendant after leaving his residence
that revealed the presence of a marijuana in the defendant's vehicle).
AFFIRMED. 1
THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.