Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2008-UP-693 - State v. Lyles

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.

Courtney Deon Lyles, Appellant.


Appeal From Spartanburg County
 Brooks P. Goldsmith, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-693
Submitted December 1, 2008 – Filed December 15, 2008   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Eleanor D. Cleary, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,  Assistant Attorney General Michelle J. Parsons, all of Columbia; Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  In this criminal appeal, Courtney Deon Lyles argues the trial court erred in admitting certain statements and drugs into evidence.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Williams, 351 S.C. 591, 598, 571 S.E.2d 703, 707 (Ct. App. 2002) (stating when probable cause exists to believe a traffic violation has occurred, the decision to stop the automobile is reasonable per se); State v. Pichardo, 367 S.C. 84, 97-98, 623 S.E.2d 840, 847 (Ct. App. 2005) (holding the police may stop and briefly detain a vehicle if they have a reasonable suspicion the occupants are involved in criminal activity); State v. Weaver, 374 S.C. 313, 320, 649 S.E.2d 479, 482 (2007) (“Pursuant to the automobile exception, if there is probable cause to search a vehicle, a warrant is not necessary so long as the search is based on facts that would justify the issuance of a warrant, even though a warrant has not been actually obtained.”); State v. Lane, 271 S.C. 68, 72, 245 S.E.2d 114, 116 (1978) (holding an odor emanating from the packages alone was sufficient basis to establish probable cause as to their contents when it is considered that an officer of the law, familiar with the odor of marijuana, believed the odor being emitted was that of marijuana); U.S. v. Scheetz, 293 F.3d 175, 184 (4th Cir. 2002) (holding the smell of marijuana alone can satisfy the probable cause required to search automobiles).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.


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