McHam v. State
746 S.E.2d 41
S.C.2013Background
- At a nighttime highway checkpoint, Trooper Crawford approached McHam's vehicle; occupants made repeated movements while searching for papers and were unbelted. Crawford walked to the passenger side and, for officer-safety reasons, opened the passenger door to see their hands. He observed a bag of crack and called other troopers; additional drugs and paraphernalia were seized and both occupants were charged.
- Trial counsel filed a pretrial (in limine) motion to suppress the drugs as the product of an unlawful search; the trial court denied suppression, finding the door opening reasonable for officer safety. Counsel did not renew a contemporaneous Fourth Amendment objection when the drugs were actually admitted at trial.
- McHam was convicted of trafficking and possession with intent to distribute and received concurrent lengthy prison sentences. Direct appeal was handled under Anders v. California and dismissed by the Court of Appeals.
- McHam filed a PCR claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to preserve the Fourth Amendment issue at trial. The PCR court denied relief, concluding counsel was not ineffective and that any error was harmless because the appellate Anders review reached the issue.
- This Court granted certiorari. It found counsel’s failure to renew the objection was deficient performance under Strickland but held McHam suffered no prejudice because the Fourth Amendment claim fails on the merits: opening the door is a search, but officer-safety justified the intrusion under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to renew a Fourth Amendment objection | McHam: counsel was deficient for not preserving the suppression issue at trial, which prejudiced his appeal and trial outcome | State: counsel’s performance was adequate and any failure was harmless because the evidence was properly admitted and Anders review addressed the issue | Counsel’s failure to renew objection was deficient (Strickland prong 1), but McHam failed to show prejudice (prong 2); PCR denial affirmed as modified |
| Whether opening the passenger-side door constituted a Fourth Amendment search | McHam: opening the door was an unlawful search that led to suppression of the drugs | State: opening was justified by officer-safety and thus reasonable under the Fourth Amendment | Opening the door is a search, but justified by officer-safety under the circumstances; evidence admissible |
| Whether an Anders dismissal means the unpreserved issue was decided on the merits | McHam: Anders dismissal should not foreclose PCR review of unpreserved Fourth Amendment claim | State: argued the Court of Appeals considered the issue on the merits | Anders review does not decide unpreserved issues on the merits; PCR court erred to the extent it relied on that premise |
| Whether officer-safety can justify opening a vehicle door during a lawful stop | McHam: no justification for opening the door absent more specific suspicion | State: officer-safety is a substantial governmental interest that can justify limited intrusions | Officer-safety can justify opening a door to view occupants when circumstances (darkness, multiple occupants, suspicious movements, lone approach) make safety concerns reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (procedure for appointed counsel who finds appeal frivolous)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (traffic stops are seizures subject to Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (officers may order driver out of vehicle for safety)
- Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (Mimms extended to passengers)
- New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (opening vehicle to view VIN constituted a search; reasonableness balancing)