car “entitle[s] [police] to conduct an investigatory stop in order to determine whether the car’s owner [is] in violation of state law requiring permanent tags within thirty days of a vehicle’s purchase.” The problem with McDonald is that it cited no authority for the purported statement of South Carolina law (for that matter, neither did the United States cite any authority when it briefed that case). We have made an independent search, and we find nothing in South Carolina’s law to support the statement in McDonald. At this point, we can only conclude that McDonald misstated the law of South Carolina. Of course, any state law that authorized a search or seizure would be subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Manbeck, 744 F.2d 360, 382 (4th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). The Fourth Amendment does not allow a
recognizing that the sentence imposed should be consistent with the protection of the public recognizing that power to act in public welfare must be exercised in manner consistent with established standards holding rules of procedure interpreted in same manner as statutes holding that a phrase should be interpreted consistent with the context of the statute in which it is contained holding that statute authorizing customs officials to board vessels must be interpreted in a manner consistent with limitations imposed by the fourth amendment