"To establish self-defense in South Carolina, four elements must be present: (1) the defendant must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty; (2
How later courts described this case
- "To establish self-defense in South Carolina, four elements must be present: (1) the defendant must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty; (2
- "An appellate court reviewing the decision to issue a search warrant should decide whether the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed." (quoting State v. Dupree, 354 S.C. 676, 683 , 583 S.E.2d 437, 441 (Ct. App. 2003))
- "In criminal cases, an appellate court sits to review only errors of law, and it is bound by the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous." (quoting State v. Brown, 401 S.C. 82, 87 , 736 S.E.2d 263, 265 (2012))
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GEATHERS, J.,
concurring in a separate opinion.
I depart with the majority’s conclusion that a reasonable police officer would have entered Wright’s motel room to prevent Wright and Powell from fleeing and to conduct a protective sweep for officer safety. See State v. Herring, 387 S.C. 201, 210 , 692 S.E.2d 490, 495 (2009) (“A warrantless search is justified under the exigent circumstances doctrine to prevent a suspect from fleeing or where there is a risk of danger to police or others inside or outside a dwelling.”). Detective Paul Johnson testified that he and other detectives “set up an outside perimeter covering all exits.” Therefore, a reasonable officer would rely on this perimeter to prevent Wright or Powell from leaving the premises. Cf. Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 100-101 , 110 S.Ct. 1684 , 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990) (observing no need to prevent a suspect’s escape when three or four police squads surrounded the home in which the suspect was a guest).
Further, there was no evidence that police conducted a protective sweep in this case. Rather, Detective Chatfield testified that he “backed out of the room” as Wright and Powell were taken out of the room and the location was secured until a search warrant could be obtained and executed. Likewise, Detective Johnson testified, “Everyone left the room.” Therefore, the evidence does not support the application of the exigent circumstances doctrine discussed in Herring .
Nonetheless, the intrusion into the motel room was justified by the objective of law enforcement to detain, if not arrest, Wright and Powell for their involvement in the Victim’s murder. See United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 229 , 105 S.Ct. 675 , 83 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985) (“[I]f police have a reasonable suspicion, grounded in specific and articulable facts, that a *378 person they encounter was involved in or is wanted in connection with a completed felony, then a Terry stop may be made to investigate that suspicion.” (referencing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 26 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968))); United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42-43 , 96 S.Ct. 2406 , 49 L.Ed.2d 300 (1976) (holding the petitioner’s act of retreating into her house could not thwart a warrantless arrest when it was set in motion in a public place upon probable cause). Therefore, I concur in upholding the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress and affirming Wright’s conviction.