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, Respondent,
Rahiem Kirkman, Appellant.
Appeal From Anderson County
Alexander S. Macaulay, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-500
Submitted November 1, 2011 – Filed November 9, 2011
J. Falkner Wilkes, of Greenville, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Christina T. Adams, of Anderson, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Rahiem Kirkman appeals his conviction for trafficking in cocaine, arguing the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of an unlawful detention and search. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Tindall, 388 S.C. 518, 521, 698 S.E.2d 203, 205 (2010) ("On appeals from a motion to suppress based on Fourth Amendment grounds, [an appellate court] applies a deferential standard of review and will reverse if there is clear error."); Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 409 (2005) ("[T]he use of a well-trained narcotics-detection dog . . . [,] performed on the exterior of [a driver's] car while he [is] lawfully seized for a traffic violation[,] . . . does not rise to the level of a constitutionally cognizable infringement."); State v. Morris, Op. No. 4872 (S.C. Ct. App. refiled Nov. 2, 2011) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 39 at 18, 26) (holding that an officer may search any part of a vehicle without a warrant if there is probable cause); State v. Brown, 389 S.C. 473, 482, 698 S.E.2d 811, 816 (Ct. App. 2010) ("Probable cause to search exists where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.").
FEW, C.J., THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.