dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. At the PCR hearing, Sikes did not claim the initial stop of the car was unlawful. Further, Sikes did not raise the issue regarding the length of the subsequent warrants check. Therefore, these issues are not properly before the Court. Hyman v. State, 278 S.C. 501, 299 S.E. (2d) 330 (1983) (issues not raised or ruled upon below are not preserved for review).
Sikes claims the officers improperly seized him without probable cause only when they requested identification. The PCR judge ruled the officers’ request for identification was not a fourth amendment seizure. I agree. A request for identification by police does not, by itself, constitute a fourth amendment seizure. I.N.S. v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 215, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 1762, 80 L.Ed. (2d) 247 (1984); see State v. Foster, 269 S.C. 373, 237 S.E. (2d) 589 (1977). The PCR judge’s finding that Sikes received effective assistance of counsel is supported by the record. Therefore, I would affirm the PCR judge’s order.