*1 Carolina, Respondent. SIKES, Delaney v. STATE of South Thomas Petitioner (2d) 560) (448 Supreme Court *2 T. Gregory, Defender, Lisa Asst. Appellant Appel- Officeof Columbia, late Defense, petitioner. for Medlock, Gen. T. Travis Atty. Deputy Atty. Gen. Chief Hudson, James Patrick Asst. Gen. Delbert H. Atty. Singleton, Jr., Smith, Jr., Columbia, and Gen. J. Deputy Atty. Emory for respondent. 20, 1994. Apr.
Submitted 6, 1994; 5, 1994.
Decided Reh. Den. Sept. Oct.
Toal, Justice: certiorari granted Delaney We to review dismissal of (Sikes) postconviction Thomas Sikes’ for relief application (PCR). that the in judge finding Sikes contends PCR erred that he received effective assistance of agree counsel. We and reverse.
FACTS Police arrested on an warrant outstanding during Sikes removing patrol routine traffic When Sikes from the car stop. station, at the an officer found a of crack cocaine in police bag seat. was convicted of with intent to possession back Sikes filed a PCR subsequently application alleging distribute that was ineffective in to the ad- attorney failing challenge his cocaineat trial on the that seizure missibility ground his at the traffic was unlawful. area, in a police, high-crime
The record indicates that while was a it passenger the vehicle which Sikes because stopped which, officers, had to the indicated that paper tags according or lacked insurance. After may stop- the car have been stolen car, identification from the driver ping police requested Sikes, wife, Jacque- and the and his common-law passengers, identification, line after Sikes’ obtaining Hardin. Sometime him him in the weapons placed patrol searched for At the twenty he detained for at least minutes. car where was that he did not challenge police counsel testified PCR “it that appear they [him] detention of Sikes because didn’t (the The ordinary.” out of the doing anything were police) after a application hearing, finding dismissed the judge not ineffective because his decision not to that counsel was to mini- strategic designed the seizure was a choice war- testimony regarding outstanding mize the impact certiorari. forgery charges. granted rant for Sikes’ We LAW/ANALYSIS that the PCR erred in that he ruling Sikes contends counsel when his counsel did received effective assistance of that in violation not move to evidence was obtained suppress of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. We agree. counsel,
To a claim of ineffective assistance of establish fell representation must show counsel’s petitioner an standard of reasonableness and that objective below *3 performance. defendant was such deficient prejudiced Washington, Strickland v. 668, 2052, 466 104 80 U.S. S.Ct. (2d) State, v. Gallman 273, 307 414 L.Ed. 674 S.C. S.E. (2d) (1992). the defendant claims that counsel’s fail 780 When ure articulate a Fourth Amendment claim was ineffective to assistance, defendant must show that such claim is meritorious and that the verdict would have been different absent the evidence that should have been excluded. Kimmelman v. Mor (2d) (1986). rison, 2574, 477 91 L.Ed. U.S. S.Ct. 305 violation, an officer a vehicle for a traffic stops When may briefly occupants he detain the vehicle and its while he examines the vehicle and the registration Prouse, v. driver’s license. Delaware 648, 440 U.S. 99 S.Ct. (1979) added.) 1391, 59 L.Ed. 660 (emphasis Although initial Sikes does not the officers’ of the auto- mobile, that the him improperly Sikes claims officers seized to run a warrant check with no An individual reasonable cause. freedom, is “seized” when an officer restrains his even if the detention is brief and falls short of arrest. The and dura- scope the cir- strictly justified by tion of seizure must be tied to and proper. Terry rendered its initiation cumstances which Ohio, 1, 1868, 20 L.Ed. In Carolina, South we have gone little further that by holding an officer a car may stop detain the if he briefly occupants has a reasonable suspicion that the are in occupants involved criminal activity. Knight 138, (1985) added). (emphasis Petitioner was merely a in a car passenger with paper dealer tags that had the misfortune of in a crime being “high area.”1The arresting readily officers admitted the only reason they stopped the car was because vehicles with are paper tags often stolen or lack insurance. While the car was stopped, officers asked for the identification of both driver and the Petitioner. then They removed the Petitioner from the car and him placed in the back of the car for patrol twenty minutes while they conducted their At the end investigation. twenty minutes, after diligently for evidence of criminal searching ac- tivity, the officers stolen, discovered that: the car not was driver had insurance, and that there was an outstanding warrant for forgery Petitioner. The Petitioner was arrested A transported jail. search of the back seat of the patrol car revealed a bag containing pieces several of crack cocaine. The record contains evidence that Petitioner was searched twice to his prior placement into the car.
Here the officers’ that the suspicion” “reasonable was car was either stolen or that the driver was uninsured. Under Knight, supra, neither of gave these reasons officers the right to seize or the car’s question passenger. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that this stop was reason- able, certainly a twenty-minute detention while the officers “went fishing” for evidence of some crime was not within brief Prouse, the definition announced in supra, Knight, or also supra. Damm, 220, See State v. 246 Kan. 787 P.
(1990) (seizure of of the vehicle occupants while routine records checks were made of the was unreason- occupants *4 (2d) (Utah 1991) (the able); v. Johnson, State 805 P. leap from for the asking name and date of run- passenger’s birth to ning a warrants check on her severed the rational inference from specific and articulable facts and an at- degenerated into tempt to an as support yet unparticularized suspicion or hunch). you “high The lesson here is that if live in or near’ a crime area” do not
purchase a new car. unlawful; of the Petitioner was and arrest
The detention crack of possession of the Petitioner’s therefore, the evidence fruit of the poisonous inadmissible as would have been cocaine 407, States, 471, 83 S.Ct. 371 U.S. Wong tree. Sun v. United 126, Plath, 277 284 S.E. L.Ed. State (1981). at the post-conviction Trial counsel testified “it the because that he did not hearing relief out anything him to do they asking to me were appear didn’t the trial relief court found The ordinary.” postconviction trial how- proper strategy; a matter of counsel’sdecision was viola- in the face of such blatant ever, this can not be correct Amendment rights. tion of Petitioner’s Fourth that Sikes’s Fourth found in this record Having if meritorious, we must determine Amendment claim is prejudice prongs performance he has satisfied trial counsel testi At the Sikes’ of Strickland. it didn’t seizure because question fied that he did not Sikes’ him to do asking him that were “they [the officers] appear failure to mo ordinary.” out of the Because counsel’s anything that he on the fact tion to evidence was based suppress we find counsel’s justified, the officers’ action were thought standard of reasonableness. objective decision fell below an was unlawfully obtained evidence Additionally, because cocaine, we find that possession evidence of Sikes’ only it rendered Sikes such that performance prejudiced counsel’s unfair. Lockhard v. fundamentally See proceeding — (2d) 180 Fretwell, —, —, 838, 844, 122 L.Ed. (1993). ef- that Sikes received view, judge’s finding
In our the PCR the record. of counsel is not supported fective assistance 307 S.C. See Gallman findings not be if such findings upheld “A PCR will judge’s 277, Id. at 414 S.E. evidence.” supported by probative are not need not address holding, at 782. Based on our we the PCR is Accordingly, remaining exception. Sikes’ REVERSED. Finney, JJ., concur.
Chandler Moore, J., opinion. dissenting separate Harwell, C.J., not participating. *5 Justice, dissenting:
Moore, I At the PCR Sikes did not dissent. respectfully Further, the car was unlawful. claim the initial Sikes regarding length subsequent did not raise the issue Therefore, are not be properly warrants check. these issues 501, 299 fore the 278 S.C. S.E. Hyman Court.
(1983) (issues raised or ruled below are not upon pre not review). served for seized him without improperly
Sikes claims the officers identification. The probable only they requested cause when ruled the officers’ for identification was request PCR I A request not a fourth amendment seizure. for identi agree. not, itself, constitute a fourth by fication does 210, 215, Delgado, amendment seizure. I.N.S. 1758, 1762, Foster, 80 L.Ed. see State v. The PCR judge’s finding S.E. sup that Sikes received effective assistance of counsel is Therefore, I affirm the by the record. would ported judge’s order. Doe, DOE, minor, by Doe,
Mary litem Indi- her Guardian ad John John vidually, Respondent-Appellant v. GREENVILLE HOSPITAL SYS- TEM, Appellant-Respondent. 564) (448 Appeals Court of