Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2005-UP-052 - State v. Randall

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Charles Todd Randall, Appellant.


Appeal From York County
 Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-052   
Submitted October 1, 2004 – Filed January 20, 2005


AFFIRMED


Tara  Dawn Shurling, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan  McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General W. Rutledge Martin, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Charles Todd Randall appeals his conviction for possession of crack cocaine.  Randall argues that police officers violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures when they searched his mouth.  We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR and the following authorities: State v. Wannamaker, 346 S.C. 495, 499, 552 S.E.2d 284, 286 (2001) (explaining that a ruling in limine is not final, and an objection must be made at the time the evidence is offered and a final ruling procured in order to preserve the issue for review); Samples v. Mitchell, 329 S.C. 105, 108, 495 S.E.2d 213, 215 (Ct. App. 1997) (“Making a motion in limine to exclude evidence . . . does not preserve an issue for review because a motion in limine is not a final determination.  The moving party, therefore, must make a contemporaneous objection when the evidence is introduced.”).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J. and HUFF and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.


[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.