by Alex KornfeldBURGLARY. APPURTENANT OR NOT IS THE KEY QUESTION
BURGLARY. APPURTENANT OR NOT IS THE KEY QUESTION IN STATE V. JOHN KENNETH MASSEY, JR.
John Kenneth Massey, Jr. was charged with first degree burglary. Prior to trial Massey’s lawyer moved to quash the first-degree burglary indictment because the building that Massey allegedly burglarized was on a separate piece of land than the victim’s residence and it was used for the victim’s business, not as a dwelling.
The land of which the business was located was titled in his Uncle Bill’s name, not his name. The victim also stated the building that was burglarized was primarily used as a storage building for belongings like four-wheelers, boats, and tools.
The Government argued the storage building was appurtenant to the family dwelling. Although the building was titled in Uncle Bill’s name it was a mere 200 feet from victim’s residence. Over the government’s objection, the Court granted Massey’s motion to quash the indictment reasoning that victim did not own the piece of land (remember Uncle Bill did) or the storage building nor was it appurtenant to the residence. The Court further stated the appropriate charge is actually burglary, second degree.
The government attempted to argue for the first time before the South Carolina Court of Appeals that the lower court lacked authority to quash the indictment because burglary is a crime of possession, not a crime of ownership. The South Carolina Court of Appeals did not rule on this argument because it was unpreserved.
In layman terms, the Court found the storage building wasn’t a dwelling which was a requirement to meet the elements of first-degree burglary in this case. To be first degree burglary in this case the structure needed to be within 200 yards of a dwelling AND appurtenant. The government couldn’t prove the latter because the Court found that a building unattached to a residence on a separate parcel of land isn’t appurtenant.
So, what difference does it make if it’s burglary first or burglary second? A whole lotta time…A whole lotta time.
Source: https://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/COA/5630.pdf
On June 10, 2020 The South Carolina Supreme Court Reversed the Court of Appeals Decision and Remanded the Case to the trial court.
Source: https://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/27981.pdf
I HAVE INCLUDED THE BURGLARY LAWS FOR REFERENCE
SECTION 16-11-311. Burglary; first degree.
(A) A person is guilty of burglary in the first degree if the person enters a dwelling without consent and with intent to commit a crime in the dwelling, and either:
(1) when, in effecting entry or while in the dwelling or in immediate flight, he or another participant in the crime:
(a) is armed with a deadly weapon or explosive; or
(b) causes physical injury to a person who is not a participant in the crime; or
(c) uses or threatens the use of a dangerous instrument; or
(d) displays what is or appears to be a knife, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, or other firearm; or
(2) the burglary is committed by a person with a prior record of two or more convictions for burglary or housebreaking or a combination of both; or
(3) the entering or remaining occurs in the nighttime.
(B) Burglary in the first degree is a felony punishable by life imprisonment. For purposes of this section, “life” means until death. The court, in its discretion, may sentence the defendant to a term of not less than fifteen years.
HISTORY: 1985 Act No. 159, Section 2; 1995 Act No. 83, Section 17.
SECTION 16-11-311. Burglary; first degree.
(A) A person is guilty of burglary in the first degree if the person enters a dwelling without consent and with intent to commit a crime in the dwelling, and either:
(1) when, in effecting entry or while in the dwelling or in immediate flight, he or another participant in the crime:
(a) is armed with a deadly weapon or explosive; or
(b) causes physical injury to a person who is not a participant in the crime; or
(c) uses or threatens the use of a dangerous instrument; or
(d) displays what is or appears to be a knife, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, or other firearm; or
(2) the burglary is committed by a person with a prior record of two or more convictions for burglary or housebreaking or a combination of both; or
(3) the entering or remaining occurs in the nighttime.
(B) Burglary in the first degree is a felony punishable by life imprisonment. For purposes of this section, “life” means until death. The court, in its discretion, may sentence the defendant to a term of not less than fifteen years.
HISTORY: 1985 Act No. 159, Section 2; 1995 Act No. 83, Section 17.
SECTION 16-11-312. Burglary; second degree.
(A) A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree if the person enters a dwelling without consent and with intent to commit a crime therein.
(B) A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree if the person enters a building without consent and with intent to commit a crime therein, and either:
(1) When, in effecting entry or while in the building or in immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime:
(a) Is armed with a deadly weapon or explosive; or
(b) Causes physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime; or
(c) Uses or threatens the use of a dangerous instrument; or
(d) Displays what is or appears to be a knife, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, or other firearm; or
(2) The burglary is committed by a person with a prior record of two or more convictions for burglary or housebreaking or a combination of both; or
(3) The entering or remaining occurs in the nighttime.
(C)(1) Burglary in the second degree pursuant to subsection (A) is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than ten years.
(2) Burglary in the second degree pursuant to subsection (B) is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than fifteen years, provided, that no person convicted of burglary in the second degree pursuant to subsection (B) shall be eligible for parole except upon service of not less than one-third of the term of the sentence.
HISTORY: 1985 Act No. 159, Section 2; 2010 Act No. 273, Section 11, eff June 2, 2010.
SECTION 16-11-313. Burglary; third degree.
(A) A person is guilty of burglary in the third degree if the person enters a building without consent and with intent to commit a crime therein.
(B) Burglary in the third degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years for conviction on a first offense and for not more than ten years for conviction of a second offense according to the discretion of the Court.
HISTORY: 1985 Act No. 159, Section 2.
by Alex KornfeldWARRANTLESS CELL PHONE SEARCHES AND WHY JUDGE KONDUROS IS RIGHT
WARRANTLESS CELL PHONE SEARCHES AND WHY JUDGE KONDUROS IS RIGHT
A review of STATE V. ROBERT LEE MOORE.
In the case of State v. Moore the South Carolina Court of Appeals ruled a limited warrantless search of Moore’s cellphone was not in violation of the law, therefore it was admissible. Moore was found guilty of attempted murder and sentenced to 30 years.
On a winter day in 2013, a victim was found shot in the head at a Taco Bell parking lot in Spartanburg. When officers arrived at the Taco Bell, the victim was draped over the driver’s side door of his vehicle. Three cell phones were found in the car. The phone at issue was found almost under the driver’s side seat according to officers. Money and drugs were also found in the car to round out the trio of clues.
The cops took pictures of the phones and took them to a detective to do a forensic examination on the phones to determine who owned each phone. To determine the ownership of the phone in question the detective took the SIM card from the phone and got the number of that particular phone. The detective told another cop of the phone number who ran it through a database. The database determined the phone belonged to Moore. Then, and only then, the cops applied for a search warrant to examine the stored data on the phone. After the search warrant was granted the detective did a full forensic examination of the phone in which stored contacts, images, call logs, and text messages were gathered.
Moore moved to suppress any and all information gathered from the search of his phone pursuant to Supreme Court case, Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014).
Moore correctly argued the search warrant affidavit submitted to support the phone warrant application was conclusory and did not support the finding of probable cause needed for issuance of a search warrant. Therefore, the evidence should be suppressed. The trial court denied Moore’s motion, ruling the phone was abandoned.
At trial, the State established the victim was at his mother’s home before the shooting and that five calls were made to the victim’s phone between 1:03 p.m. and 2:06 p.m. After the shooting, witnesses saw a white Chrysler 300 fleeing the scene. Surveillance footage from a nearby gas station showed Moore and his co-defendant exit a white Chrysler 300 and go into the gas station. At trial, there was testimony from witnesses, video surveillance, and testimony from the co-defendant that Moore got in the victim’s vehicle and pulled a gun on the victim. The co-defendant testified that a struggled occurred between Moore and the victim and the tried to open the car but the doors were locked. Then, Moore shot the victim.
On appeal, Moore argued the search of the phone violated the Fourth Amendment, and no exception to the warrant requirement applied. The Court held Moore’s Fourth Amendment right was not violated relying on persuasive rulings in other states. In this case, the Court reasoned the officer ‘removed the phone’s SIM card and processed it from the limited purposed of obtaining the telephone number. I recognize that even small manipulations of personal property have been held to be Fourth Amendment searches. However, under the facts of this case, law enforcement’s limited search of the SIM card to obtain the phone number did not constitute an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment because Moore had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the number itself.’ The Court went on to state the officers got a warrant before performing any further analysis to examine the phone’s content.
That’s basically it. The opinion is more detailed than that but that’s basically it concerning the phone search. Here’s why they got it wrong and why I predict, should this case go to the South Carolina Supreme Court Supreme Court, the search will be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment—it appears the Court incorrectly assumes that one can take a SIM card out of a phone without opening it or manipulating it. A cursory youtube search informs one that taking a SIM card out of a phone is a search that requires some difficulty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRKF_C-dA5o
This was appreciated by the United States Supreme Court as they ruled ‘Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple-get a warrant’. See Rliey v. California.
Judge Konduros of the South Carolina Court of Appeals respectfully dissented. (Thank you Judge!) She correctly stated, ‘The minute Officer McGraw removed the SIM card, he had access to digital information in which our courts have recognized an expectation of privacy.’ Further, she states the Officer got more than the cell phone number. He got thirty-four contacts and three text messages.
‘THE FACT THAT TECHNOLOGY NOW ALLOWS AN INDIVIDUAL TO CARRY SUCH INFORMATION IN HIS HAND DOES NOT MAKE THE INFORMATION ANY LESS WORTHY OF THE PROTECTION FOR WHICH THE FOUNDERS FOUGHT.’-Justice Roberts