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,
Elliott M. Mitchell, Appellant.
Appeal From Beaufort County
J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-083
Submitted January 2, 2009 – Filed February 12, 2009
Chief Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, 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 Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor I. McDuffie Stone, III, of Beaufort, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Elliott Mitchell appeals his conviction for trafficking ten to twenty-eight grams of crack cocaine. Mitchell contends the crack cocaine was the product of his unlawful arrest for criminal domestic violence (CDV) and asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We find that Mitchell was first lawfully detained by a Port Royal police officer within Port Royal city limits pursuant to a "be on the lookout" report originating from the neighboring city of Beaufort regarding a suspect in a CDV investigation; custody of Mitchell was then transferred to a Beaufort police officer for questioning while still in Port Royal. We further find that, during questioning by the Beaufort police officer, probable cause to arrest Mitchell was developed. See S.C. Code Ann. § 16-25-70(A) (Supp. 2008) (providing that a law enforcement officer may arrest a person without a warrant "at the person's place of residence or elsewhere if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person is committing or has freshly committed" an act of misdemeanor or felony CDV."); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-25-70(B) (Supp. 2008) (requiring an officer to arrest a suspect where the alleged victim presents physical manifestations of injury and the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect recently committed an act of CDV); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-25-70(H)(1)(b) (Supp. 2008) (explaining evidence discovered as a result of a warrantless search, administered pursuant to a CDV complaint, is admissible if the evidence was found during a search incident to a lawful arrest for alleged CDV). Accordingly, we affirm.
WILLIAMS, PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.