Judge, Court of Appeals of South Carolina
State v. Adams
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2012-04-25 · cited 1×
In State v. Adams, Alfred Adams appealed his conviction for trafficking cocaine, arguing that the trial court should have suppressed 141 grams of cocaine found on his person because police had installed a GPS tracking device on his car without a warrant. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The court held that attaching and monitoring the device without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment under United States v. Jones, but the resulting evidence did not require suppression. It reasoned that the traffic stop was independently justified by the officer’s observation of two lane changes without signals, the brief dog sniff occurred during that lawful stop, and the pat-down that uncovered the drugs was a valid safety measure performed before the license check was complete.
criminal lawprocedure
Mullarkey v. Mullarkey
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2012-01-25 · cited 3×
In Mullarkey v. Mullarkey, the South Carolina Court of Appeals addressed a dispute over a 1999 family court order that awarded a wife 43.8% of her husband's disposable military retirement pay as part of a property division in a separate support and maintenance action. The husband sought to enforce or modify the order after his 2009 retirement, arguing that the percentage should apply only to the retirement benefits he had accrued during the marriage up to the time of the 1999 order (252 months of service), rather than his full career total including post-1999 service. The family court denied the motion, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the 1999 order was intended to divide only the benefits earned by that date and functioned like a qualified domestic relations order based on the circumstances at the time of the parties' separation. The court directed the Department of Defense Finance and Accounting Service to recalculate the wife's share accordingly, retroactive to the start of payments, with reimbursement for any excess amounts, and remanded the issue of attorney’s fees for reconsideration.
family lawproperty
State v. Elwell
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2011-11-23 · cited 8×
In State v. Elwell, the State appealed the trial court's pretrial dismissal of a second-offense DUI charge against Justin Elwell. The court had ruled that police violated S.C. Code § 56-5-2953(A)(2)(d) by stopping the breath-test-site video recording immediately after Elwell refused the test and before the full twenty-minute pre-test waiting period had elapsed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for trial, holding that the statute's requirement to record the "required twenty-minute pre-test waiting period" applies only when a breath test is actually administered. Because longstanding precedent (State v. Jansen) establishes that the waiting period itself is unnecessary once a suspect refuses, the refusal both eliminates the recording obligation and supplies a "valid reason" under subsection (B) to excuse any gap in the video.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Morris
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2011-11-02 · cited 10×
In State v. Morris, Kenneth Darrell Morris was pulled over for a traffic violation while driving a rented car, after which officers observed hollowed cigar blunts and loose tobacco, learned of his prior drug arrest, noted inconsistent travel stories from him and his passenger, and claimed to smell burnt marijuana; they ultimately searched the trunk without a warrant or consent and found ecstasy pills, later discovering marijuana during an inventory search. Morris was convicted of trafficking ecstasy and marijuana possession with intent to distribute after the trial court denied his motion to suppress the drugs. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court’s factual findings—including the credibility of the officer’s marijuana odor testimony and the indications of recent marijuana use—were supported by the record and, under the deferential “any evidence” standard of review, established probable cause to search the entire vehicle under the automobile exception.
criminal lawprocedure
Pittman v. Pittman
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2011-10-18 · cited 8×
In this divorce case, Jetter Pittman appealed the family court's awards of permanent periodic alimony, equitable division of marital property, and attorney's fees to Gloria Pittman. The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the alimony award of $600 per month, the $12,500 contribution to wife's attorney's fees, and the classification and valuation of the husband's surveying business as a fully marital asset subject to equitable division, reasoning that the parties' joint efforts during the marriage—including wife's financial and operational contributions—transmuted the business into marital property. The court also upheld the denial of credits to husband for temporary alimony payments and premarital business value. It reversed only the award of a laptop computer to wife, holding that the device, purchased with business funds after filing, should have been included in husband's award of the business to achieve equitable division.
family lawproperty
Stevens Aviation, Inc. v. Dyncorp International LLC
Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2011-07-27 · cited 7×
The case involved a contract dispute between Stevens Aviation and DynCorp over a subcontract for aircraft maintenance work on C-12, RC-12, and UC-35 planes under a federal prime contract. Stevens sued DynCorp for allegedly diverting covered maintenance work to other providers, and the circuit court granted partial summary judgment to Stevens, ruling that the subcontract incorporated a prior Teaming Agreement and formed an enforceable requirements contract. On appeal, the South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the subcontract's plain language superseded the Teaming Agreement except for a proprietary data provision, did not obligate DynCorp to direct exclusive work to Stevens, and therefore did not create a requirements contract as a matter of law. The court also noted that summary judgment was granted without adequate opportunity for discovery on the issues presented.
business & regulatoryprocedure