State v. Kinloch ( 2012 )

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, Appellant,
v.
Bryant Kinloch, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2010-150606
Appeal From Charleston County
Roger M. Young, Sr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-432
Heard June 19, 2012 – Filed July 18, 2012
AFFIRMED
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy
Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney
General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia, and
Solicitor Scarlett A. Wilson, of Charleston, for Appellant.
Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia,
for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: The State appeals the circuit court's decision to grant Bryant
Kinloch's motion to suppress evidence discovered during the execution of a
warrant to search his residence. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR.
We find no clear error in the circuit court's determination that the search warrant
was not supported by probable cause. See State v. Wright, 391 S.C. 436, 442, 706
S.E.2d 324, 326 (2011) (stating on review of a circuit court's ruling on a motion to
suppress based on the Fourth Amendment, "[t]he appellate court will reverse only
when there is clear error"); State v. Gentile, 373 S.C. 506, 514-16, 646 S.E.2d 171,
174-76 (Ct. App. 2007) (finding magistrate lacked a substantial basis for
concluding probable cause existed, where information presented to magistrate did
not adequately connect evidence of drug activity to respondent's residence).
The State's arguments regarding good-faith exceptions are not preserved. See State
v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 134, 620 S.E.2d 737, 741 (2005) (finding argument
asserted on appeal unpreserved because it was not raised to and ruled upon by
lower court).
We do not address the additional sustaining ground Kinloch raises. See State v.
Bostick, 392 S.C. 134, 139 n.4, 708 S.E.2d 774, 776 n.4 (2011) (declining to
address issue because court's resolution of another issue was dispositive of the
appeal).
AFFIRMED.
FEW, C.J., and HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.