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,
Lawreen Donna McNeil, Appellant.
Appeal From Greenville County
Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-704
Submitted December 1, 2008 – Filed December 15, 2008
Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, 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 Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert Mills Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Lawreen Donna McNeil appeals her conviction for trafficking marijuana and argues the trial court erred in admitting drugs seized from her car into evidence. We affirm 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); U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 706-07 (1983) (holding an examination by a trained narcotics dog is not a search and seizure but is considered a minor intrusion); Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (holding once a drug dog alerts an officer of possible contraband, probable cause exists to search the car); 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.”).
WILLIAMS, PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.