Appellate Defense

 On May 13, 2010, the South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court in State v. Syllester D. Taylor. Taylor was originally arrested in July of 2006 for possession with intent to distribute (PWID) cocaine base. The appellate court concluded that the officers that arrested Taylor did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him as they did not witness him attempt to sell or purchase any drugs. In this case, the officer received an anonymous tip that a black male was riding a bicycle in the area and they suspected possible drug activity was taking place. The court found that receiving tips of this nature lack reliability since the person is unknown and could be providing false information. In such an instance, further investigation must take place that proves reasonable suspicion before an individual can be detained. Basically, in most cases, anonymous witnesses do not have credibility, thus the officer must observe criminal activity prior to making a stop. The tipster that identified Taylor did not prove to have inside information into his affairs nor any predictive information about his future whereabouts; therefore, they were deemed unreliable by the Court of Appeals. Further, after arriving at the location, the officer did not notice any behavior that could be associated with drug activity because he did not witness any drug exchange or concealment. Therefore, the court ruled that the officer had not established reasonable suspicion and had no legal right to search or apprehend him. As such, the court reversed his conviction and vacated his sentence.

In order to clarify cases involving these types of issues, the court did find that an officer should take into consideration the criminal activity notably involved in an area; however, that cannot be the only cause for suspicion. Further, there may be a combination of normally innocent actions, but when placed together, it may amount to reasonable suspicion. Some factors that can contribute to this finding are apparent nervousness and evasion. On the other hand, the court determined that there are innocent reasons as to why a person may evade police and in such cases, if an officer does not have reasonable suspicion, the individual can ignore the officer.

Although the lower court denied Taylor's initial motion to suppress the cocaine evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure, the Court of Appeals found a substantial error in its decision. This is primarily why it is important to retain an appellate attorney that will be able to protect your best interests and identify keys issues such as these on appeal. Taylor could have served a term of imprisonment for thirty years, but he was able to present evidence found in the record below that supported his claim. Going through this type of proceeding can be difficult and often discouraging as the appellate process can take years, so one must seek the advice of an attorney immediately. If you or someone you know is seeking to appeal their conviction, contact one of our South Carolina attorneys today at 1-800-94-TRIAL.