THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals The State, Respondent, v. Darren Keith Belt, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-002350

Appeal From Charleston County Kristi Lea Harrington, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-150 Submitted March 1, 2017 – Filed April 5, 2017

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Laura Ruth Baer, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Susan Ranee Saunders, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Robinson v. State, 407 S.C. 169, 180-81, 754 S.E.2d 862, 868 (2014) ("On appeal from a motion to suppress on Fourth Amendment grounds, this [c]ourt applies a deferential standard of review and will reverse only if there is clear error."); State v. Brockman, 339 S.C. 57, 66, 528 S.E.2d 661, 666 (2000) ("[W]e will review the trial court's [Fourth Amendment] ruling like any other factual finding and reverse if there is clear error. We will affirm if there is any evidence to support the ruling." (emphasis added)); Robinson, 407 S.C. at 182, 754 S.E.2d at 868 ("[L]ooking at the totality of the circumstances, reasonable suspicion requires there be an objective, specific basis for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity."); id. at 182, 754 S.E.2d at 869 ("The police officer may make reasonable inferences regarding the criminality of a situation in light of his experience, but he must be able to point to articulable facts that, in conjunction with his inferences, 'reasonably warrant' the intrusion." (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968))); id. ("If, during the stop of the vehicle, the officer's suspicions are confirmed or further aroused—even if for a different reason than he initiated the stop—the stop may be prolonged, and the scope of the detention enlarged as circumstances require.").

AFFIRMED.1 GEATHERS, MCDONALD, and HILL, JJ., concur.

We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.