Mar 7, 2013 | Criminal Defense, Drug Crimes and Controlled Substances Defense, Felony Drug Possession, Uncategorized
Two South Carolina men have been arrested after the Rock Hill Police Department seized several stolen guns, phones, drugs, and a sum of money earlier last week. The police had an arrest warrant for an 18-year-old suspected of distributing marijuana, when they entered the house.
The men were charged with two counts of possession of a stolen pistol, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, as well as possession of crack-cocaine. The Rock Hill Multijurisdictional drug unit responded to the scene.
It is important that when a person allows police to enter his or her house, he understands his rights when is comes to warrant requirements. South Carolina has determined that a warrant legally and duly issued authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest the individual named therein. Further, the South Carolina Constitution provides that “no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the person to be seized. S.C. Const. Article I, Section 10.
It has been long established in South Carolina that an arrest under a warrant not supported by oath or affirmation showing probable cause is illegal, entitling the person arrested to be discharged. Also, the arresting officer must be sure to show the warrant upon request; but, a known officer need not do so. It is important to note that, in South Carolina, the law presumes the arresting officer is known to the person arrested. State v. Higgins, 51 S.C. 51, 54-55 (1897).
The South Carolina Supreme Court has determined that a law enforcement officer is authorized to make a warrantless arrest based upon his knowledge that a valid arrest warrant has been issued against the defendant. State v. Grant, 310 S.C. 240 (1992). A search warrant, on the other hand, is prescribed by statute, and may be issued on an affidavit reciting the facts on information and belief and must show the source of the affiants information. Further, it must be sworn on information and belief that does not contain sufficient information, and must be supplemented by oral testimony before the issuing magistrate. The search warrant must be supported by probable cause by stating the facts related to the time of the issuance, so to justify probable cause at that exact time. State v. Corns, 310 S.C. 546, 548 (1992).
When police are at your door, and it is that moment before you ask them “can I see a warrant,” make sure that you know that an arrest warrant will be issued for a person, and a search warrant is that which is issued on the residence. A person who is implicated in a crime associated with a search warrant must know how to read such a document. The document must describe with particularity, the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized. If the holder of a warrant knocks on your door, make sure to read the document carefully. They may only search what is described in the warrant, unless an exception applies.
If you or a loved one has been subject to a warrantless search, or a search you think may have been conducted with a warrant absent probable cause, call the law offices of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP. We understand the law, and can interpret what probable cause the warrant has established. For a consultation, call 803-548-4444, or toll-free at 877-374-5999.
Mar 6, 2013 | Assault and Battery, Criminal Defense, Drug Crimes and Controlled Substances Defense, Uncategorized
Two Rock Hill residents are now facing criminal charges after a shooting took place Saturday night in Fort Mill.
According to reports, the shooting occurred around 10:15 p.m. at an apartment complex near the Fort Mill Square Shopping Center, right at the corner of Highway 160 and Doby’s Bridge Road. The Fort Mill Police have reported that incident was triggered when the 23 year old Rock Hill resident went to the apartment complex to pick up his child. Shortly upon arrival, a man fired a handgun at the 23 year old multiple times while another resident was hiding in the apartment.
The victim states that a man was waiting in the doorway of the apartment for his arrival. When the victim got there, a 24 year old Rock Hill resident began to argue with the the man.
The man waiting then escalated the fight when he pulled the handgun out of his waistband. The 24 year ols subsequently chased the victim into the parking lot while waiving the handgun and yelling obscenities at the victim.
The victim says that he had to take cover in his sister’s apartment that was nearby, after the 24 year old shot at the victim numerous times. The shooter actually missed the victim, but instead his bullets hit a Ford Explorer two times in the parking lot.
Both the victim and the shooter fled the scene when they heard the sound of the police arriving, as they led the cops down a 9-mile chase down Cherry Road, towards Heckle Blvd.
According to reports, the Rock Hill police were forced to use stop sticks on the road, in order to disable the vehicle that the shooter was driving. Subsequnelty, the shooter actually jumped out of the vehicle while in transit, and began to run on foot from the police.
Reports drafted by the policeman state that the person hiding in the apartment then kicked in two doors and then began to physcially assualt the mother of his two children after the police were distracted by the chase. The police found the battered woman with blood in her nostrils and brusies around her eyes.
Moreover, the Fort Mill police found a .380 caliber Cobra gun along side Brickyard Road in the grass, where the intial chase began.
The charges issued to the shooter are as follows: attempted murder, possession of marijuana, possession of a firearm by a person convicted of felony, and possession of a weapon during a violent crime.
The victim was charged with driving under suspension, failure to stop for blue lights( for “running from the patrol car”) and accessory after the fact to a felony.
Any crime offense or drug charge can bring many difficulties in an individual’s life. Contact the law offices of Reeves, Aiken, and Hightower to consult with one of our criminal attorneys. Our criminal attorneys handle many types of criminal cases in North and South Carolina, including criminal drug and burglary cases. Contact us today at 803-548-4444 or 877-374-5999 toll-free.
Mar 5, 2013 | Criminal Defense, DUI & DWI, Felony DUI, Uncategorized
On December 18, 2012, Charlotte Mecklenburg patrol officers and policemen teamed with the Mecklenburg ABC Law Enforcement to file an astonishing total of 89 DWI charges. The checkpoint was set up on University City Boulevard late on Friday evening and early into Saturday morning.
This particular checkpoint was the “kick off” to the later 25 checkpoints that the Enforcement Team plans to hold throughout Charlotte this year.
According to reports, the checkpoint was equipped with a large bus that was standing by to administer breathalyzer tests to the person suspected of drinking and driving. The checkpoint was instituted as part of a statewide “Booze It or Lose It” campaign in which the force wished to prevent drunk driving and educate the public of the serious dangers in connection to driving while intoxicated.
This particular checkpoint was set up were targeted towards college students attending the University of North Carolina at the Charlotte Campus. The Campus has numerous entrances, one being located directly off of University City Boulevard.
After all was said and done, 24 people were charged with driving with a revoked license. Moreover, 18 people were charged for operating tractor-trailers or semi’s without having the proper operator’s license. Of the 89 charges issued, only seven were awarded to people who were driving while intoxicated. The remaining 29 charges were due too minor traffic violations.
If you or someone you know has been charged with a DWI, or any other traffic violation, contact the law offices of Reeves, Aiken,and Hightower,LLP. Our criminal attorneys understand the hardships that come with any criminal charges and want to help you or someone you know through his/her difficult time. We are licensed in both North and South Carolina, where you can contact us at 704-499-9000 or 877-374-5999 toll-free.
Mar 5, 2013 | Criminal Defense, Uncategorized
The 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, houses, papers, and effects conducted by government officials. An emerging issue that has confronted courts for many years, most recently in a North Carolina Court of Appeals decision, is whether or not curtilage is considered part of the home so that a warranted must be obtained before it may be searched.
Curtilage is defined as the land immediately surrounding a house or dwelling, including any closely associated buildings and structures, but excluding any associated “open fields beyond”. It delineates the boundary within which a home owner can have a reasonable expectation of privacy and where “intimate home activities” take place. In United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987), the Supreme Court provided guidance in interpreting whether the homeowner had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched saying that, “curtilage questions should be resolved with particular reference to four factors: the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by.”
Based on these and other contributing factors, the North Carolina Court of Appeals in its recent decision in State v. Grice, 2012 N.C. App. LEXIS 1316 (November 20, 2012), held that a valid knock and announce presence by police officers does not support a warrantless search and seizure of evidence inside the curtilage of a home, even if the evidence is in plain view while the officer is located at a lawful vantage point. The court of appeals weighed heavily the fact that it would be hard to limit a knock and announce rule as prerequisite to any seizure of evidence inside the home’s curtilage based on the plain-view doctrine to ensure a reasonable expectation of privacy of homeowners. The court reasoned that by giving officers the right to seize any item in plain-view from a lawful vantage point wherever that item may be located goes against the policy of private citizens being secure and free in their homes and is filled with the dangers the 4th Amendment was intended to prohibit.
If you or someone you know is facing criminal charges due to a Constitutional violation, contact the law offices of Robert J. Reeves,PC to consult with one of our criminal attorneys. We are licensed in both North and South Carolina, where you can contact us at 704-499-9000 or 877-374-5999 toll-free.
Mar 5, 2013 | Burglary/Robbery/Larceny, Criminal Defense, Uncategorized
A Rock Hill resident was apprehended by police when to woman was caught stealing almost 50 separate pieces of jewelry from the Rock Hill Galleria.
According to a police report, the woman went to the Belk Store at the Rock Hill Galleria on Friday night with a pillow case and her purse in hand.
The woman took price tags off several pieces of jewelry and put them in the pillow case, which was concealed by a jacket she was wearing.When the woman attempted to leave the store, a security guard stopped her and confiscated around $2,000 worth of jewelry she had stolen.
After apprehending the suspect, authorities charged her with shoplifting.
Getting charged with shoplifting in the state of South Carolina is a very serious crime. Furthermore if one has purposefully concealed the items in question, the prosecution may use evidence against the defendant to presume shoplifting has occurred.
According to South Carolina Statutes, Sections 16-13-110 defines “concealment” in terms of shoplifting means “to hide merchandise on the person or among the belongings of a person so that, although there may be some notice of its presence, it is not visible through ordinary observation.” S.C. Stat. 16-13-110(2006).
Moreover, section 16-13-120 allows for the state to draw a presumptions from concealment of unpurchased goods, stating in pertinent part that ” it is permissible to infer that any person wilfully concealing unpurchased goods or merchandise of any store or other mercantile establishment either on the premises or outside the premises of the store has concealed the article with the intention of converting it to his own use without paying the purchase price thereof” within the meaning of the concealment definition provided above.S.C. Stat. 16-13-120(2006)
Contact the law offices of Reeves, Aiken, and Hightower to consult with one of our criminal attorneys if you or someone you know has been charged with the crime of shoplifting. We are licensed in both North Carolina and South Carolina, where you can contact us at 704-499-9000 or 877-374-5999 toll-free.
Mar 4, 2013 | Criminal Defense, Drug Crimes and Controlled Substances Defense, DUI & DWI, Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance, Uncategorized
A 50-year-old Rock Hill woman has been apprehended by authorities on site at a cemetary last Monday, where she was caught inhaling fumes from a computer duster spray can.
According to a police report, officers were dispatched to the Forest Hills Cemetery on Old York Road. A witness had called in claiming a woman was parked in a silver colored SUV in the cemetery and that she was holding some type of can.
Officers approached the car and the woman was passed out behind the wheel. When officers awoke the woman, police stated her eyes were glassy, according to a report. Two cans were taken as evidence from the scene.
The woman was released Monday on a $500 bond and is being charged with inhaling aromatic hydrocarbons.
If you or someone you know is facing prosecution for any criminal charges, contact the law offices of Reeves, Aiken, and Hightower to consult with one of our criminal attorneys. Our criminal attorneys handle many types of criminal cases in North and South Carolina. We are licensed in both North and South Carolina, where you can contact us at 704-499-9000 or 877-374-5999 toll-free.
