Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Table of Contents
Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
About
This compendium includes significant criminal cases by the U.S. Supreme Court & N.C. appellate courts, Nov. 2008 – Present. Selected 4th Circuit cases also are included.
Jessica Smith prepared case summaries Nov. 2008-June 4, 2019; later summaries are prepared by other School staff.
Instructions
Navigate using the table of contents to the left or by using the search box below. Use quotations for an exact phrase search. A search for multiple terms without quotations functions as an “or” search. Not sure where to start? The 5 minute video tutorial offers a guided tour of main features – Launch Tutorial (opens in new tab).
In this Rowan County case, defendant appealed after pleading guilty to possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia and carrying a concealed handgun, arguing error in denying his motion to suppress as the products of an unlawful search and seizure. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment, set aside the plea agreement in its entirety, and remanded for new proceedings on defendant’s motion to suppress.
In March of 2020, detectives were observing a fish game arcade when they saw a black SUV. After running the plates, they determined the SUV was registered to the spouse of defendant, a person one of the detectives was familiar with receiving information that defendant sold drugs in the past. Based only on this information, the detectives followed the SUV, eventually pulling it over near the Davidson County line for speeding 5 mph over the limit. During the stop, a K-9 unit performed an open-air sniff around the vehicle, alerting on the driver’s side near the gas lid. A detective searched defendant, finding methamphetamine in his pocket, and a search of the vehicle found a pistol near the center console and a set of scales, but no further contraband. Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress all the evidence, but the trial court denied the motion due to the K-9 alert. Defendant then entered into a plea agreement, reserving his right to appeal the denial.
Taking up defendant’s argument, the Court of Appeals began with the findings of fact, noting “material conflicts remain in the evidence as to whether the officers observed Defendant engage in suspicious activity, the basis for the search of Defendant’s person, and whether the K-9 positively alerted on Defendant’s vehicle for the presence of drugs.” Slip Op. at 5. The court then walked through Findings 19, 26, 27, 33, and 36, noting many of the findings simply recited the testimony of the detectives. The court highlighted findings 33 and 36, where the trial court recited testimony from two detectives regarding a K-9 alert and discussed troubling testimony about one detective waiving something near the rear tire where the K-9 was alleged to have alerted. This was not sufficient, as the court explained “[t]his witness testimony cannot substitute for a finding by the trial court that the K-9 alerted.” Id. at 12.
The court then reached conclusion of law 2, regarding the positive alert of the K-9 unit giving “reason” to search the vehicle and defendant’s person. Here the court pointed out that in conclusion of law 1, the trial court properly mentioned “probable cause,” but in conclusion 2, only mentioned “reason” to conduct the searches. Id. at 13. Additionally, “even if the trial court properly concluded the K-9 sniff gave probable cause to search the vehicle, it could not have given probable cause to search Defendant’s person.” Id. Because “the trial court’s denial of the Motion to Suppress was entered upon an improper legal standard,” the court remanded for new proceedings on the motion to suppress. Id. at 14.
Judge Gore concurred in the result only.
In this Chatham County case, defendant appealed after pleading guilty to trafficking in opium or heroin by possession with a plea agreement to preserve his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment on the guilty plea, but vacated the judgment that revoked defendant’s probation, and remanded to the trial court for reconsideration.
In July of 2021, defendant was sitting in the passenger seat of a car parked at a gas station when a law enforcement officer pulled up next to him. The officer was in uniform and in a marked car; while the officer pumped gas into his vehicle, he observed defendant move an orange pill bottle from the center console to under his seat. Defendant then exited the vehicle, and the officer questioned him about the pill bottle. Defendant denied having any pills, but after further questioning, produced a different pill bottle, and told the officer the pills were Vicodin he received from a friend. The officer then searched the vehicle, finding the orange pill bottle, and lab testing later confirmed the pills were opioids. Unbeknownst to the officer, defendant was on probation during the encounter. The trial court revoked this probation after defendant’s guilty plea, even though defendant’s probationary period had expired, but the trial court did not make any findings of good cause.
Taking up the motion to suppress, the Court of Appeals first noted that the case presented an issue of first impression: “Is a search based on a standard less than probable cause (as authorized by the terms and conditions of probation) valid, where the officer performing the search is not aware that the target of his search is on probation?” Slip Op. at 3. However, the court declined to answer this question. Instead, the court concluded that “the evidence of the encounter up to just prior to the search of the vehicle was sufficient to give the officer probable cause to search the vehicle.” Id. at 8. Because defendant only pleaded guilty to the charge related to the orange pill bottle in the vehicle, the court avoided exploring the issues related to the Vicodin inside the other pill bottle that defendant offered after questioning.
The court then considered the revocation of defendant's probation, noting that the State conceded the trial court’s error in not making a “good cause” finding. The court noted that “there was sufficient evidence before the trial court from which that court could make the required finding” and remanded for reconsideration. Id. at 10.
The discovery of marijuana on a passenger provided probable cause to search a vehicle. After stopping the defendant and determining that the defendant had a revoked license, the officer told the defendant that the officer’s K-9 dog would walk around the vehicle. At that point, the defendant indicated that his passenger had a marijuana cigarette, which she removed from her pants. The officer then searched the car and found marijuana in the trunk.