725 S.E.2d 523
S.C. Ct. App.2012Background
- Adams was investigated for drug dealing linked to a shooting and attempted robbery; police attached an GPS-tracking device to his vehicle without a warrant.
- Tracking showed Adams travelled to Atlanta and back; at night, police stationed a drug dog at a rest area and planned a stop if traffic laws were violated.
- A traffic stop was initiated for two minor violations; Adams appeared nervous and kept his hands out of sight during the stop.
- The drug dog alerted at the driver’s door and seat; a pat-down followed, revealing a large quantity of cocaine on Adams.
- The trial court suppressed nothing due to the tracking device violation, but Adams challenged the stop, pat-down, and seizure as Fourth Amendment violations.
- Adams was convicted of trafficking cocaine and sentenced; the appeal followed challenging the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the tracking device installation a Fourth Amendment search? | Adams | Adams | Yes; unlawful search, but no suppression required |
| Does the exclusionary rule require suppression despite intervening events? | Adams | Adams | No; intervening illegal act/taint is cured by traffic violations |
| Were the traffic stop and pat-down lawful despite preexisting knowledge of drug activity? | Adams | Adams | Yes; stop and pat-down valid under Fourth Amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (Supreme Court, 2012) (GPS tracking constitutes a search)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (Supreme Court, 1993) (plain feel doctrine; exceptions when identity not immediately apparent)
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (Supreme Court, 1988) (exclusionary rule not applied to derivative taint after intervening act)
- Nelson v. State, 336 S.C. 186 (S.C. 1999) (intervening illegal act exception to exclusionary rule)
- State v. Abrams, 322 S.C. 286 (S.C. 1996) (pat-down cannot extend beyond necessary for weapons unless immediately identified as contraband)
- State v. Smith, 329 S.C. 550 (S.Ct.App. 1998) (evidence from pat-down admissible when identity of contraband is immediately apparent)
- State v. Banda, 371 S.C. 245 (S.C. 2006) (reasonable suspicion to frisk when drugs may be present and safety concerns exist)
- State v. Pichardo, 367 S.C. 84 (S.Ct.App. 2005) (stop duration and scope must align with purpose; dog sniff proper if within stop)
- State v. Corley, 383 S.C. 232 (Ct. App. 2009) (pretext stops allowed if probable cause exists for traffic stop)
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (Supreme Court, 1977) (permit driver to exit vehicle during stop)
- Caballes v. Illinois, 543 U.S. 405 (Supreme Court, 2005) (drug dog sniff during lawful stop does not extend stop duration)