L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Willard consented to the search by-nodding his head toward the vehicle and telling the officers the drugs were in the console, after notification of the calls to Sherfield’s mobile phone. We likewise find the search was not an exploitation of an unlawful detention. As previously discussed, we find reasonable suspicion existed to make the stop and detention. Furthermore, although Willard allegedly noticed the officers’ guns when first surrounded, there is no evidence of any threat of force against Willard once he had exited his vehicle. Nor is there evidence of coercion or promises made. After review of all the circumstances, we find no error by the trial court in denying Willard’s motion to suppress the drugs. See Green, 341 S.C. at 219 n. 3, 532 S.E.2d at 898 n. 3 (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. HEARN, C.J., and GOOLSBY, J.,
holding that where both the appellate and trial courts are reviewing the paper record  there is no reason for the appellate courts to defer to the trial courts finding holding that the courts review is limited to ascertaining whether there is clear error on the face of the record recognizing that appellate court may reverse trial courts judgment when it is based on an erroneous conclusion of law holding the appellate standard of review in fourth amendment search and seizure cases is limited to determining whether any evidence supports the trial courts finding and the appellate court may only reverse where there is clear error holding an appellate court cannot reverse a trial courts judgment absent properly assigned error