The Fourth Amendment

1. The Fourth Amendment Protects the people�s right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures Requires that warrants to search places and to seize people and things must be supported by probable cause and must be issued on information given under oath or affirmation

2. Admissibility of Hearsay at Suppression Hearing Before or During Trial Rules 104(a); 1101(b) Admissibility of evidence determined by court Court not bound by rules of evidence, except for privileges Cases on admissibility of hearsay: Brinegar v. U.S., 338 U.S. 160 (1949); Draper v. U.S., 358 U.S. 307 (1959); State v. Roberts, 276 N.C. 98 (1970); Melton v. Hodges, 114 N.C. App. 795 (1994)

3. Objective Standard in Evaluating Search or Seizure Definition of seizure: reasonable person, innocent of criminal activity, in defendant�s position Officer�s subjective view of whether encounter was search, seizure, investigative stop, arrest is irrelevant Even if officer�s justification for investigative stop or arrest was invalid, it may be upheld if another justification existed Cases State v. Bone, 354 NC 1 (2001); State v. Peck, 305 NC 734 (1982); US v. Analla, 975 F2d 119 (4th Cir. 1992); US v. Taylor, 956 F2d 572 (6th Cir 1992); State v. Zuniga, 312 NC 251 (1982); Glenn-Robinson v. Acker, 140 NCApp 606 (2000); State v. Freeman, 307 NC 357 (1983); State v. Coffey, 65 NCApp 751 (1984).

4. Terry v. Ohio and later cases Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1(1968) Frisk with reasonable suspicion is constitutional Justice Harlan�s concurring opinion on stop issue Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (1972) Investigative stop and frisk based on informant�s information U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) Investigative stop of vehicle with reasonable suspicion Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) Order driver out of lawfully-stopped car without any justification Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) Random stop of car on highway for license or registration is unconstitutional without reasonable suspicion Court appears to approve roadblock type license checks and weight station inspections Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981) Automatic authority to detain occupants of home while conducting search with search warrant, even if occupants outside home when officers arrive

5. Cases Based on Terry v. Ohio U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) Application of Terry to seizure of luggage with reasonable suspicion of drugs inside Seizure of luggage for 90 minutes to await drug dog was beyond scope of seizure based on reasonable suspicion Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983) Application of Terry to search car for weapons with reasonable suspicion��car frisk� U.S. v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (1985) Application of Terry to stop of vehicle based on wanted flyer (for robbery) from another jurisdiction U.S. v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985) Length of investigative stop (20 minutes) was proper in this case No rigid time limitation for investigative stops

6. Cases Based on Terry v. Ohio U.S. v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) Reasonable suspicion is based on totality of circumstances Consideration of drug profile Facts describing �ongoing criminal activity� not required Later case of United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) DWI roadblock is reasonable Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) Frisk for weapons; �plain feel� is within �plain view� doctrine Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) Officer�s motivation for stopping vehicle for traffic violation is irrelevant, if probable cause exists for violation Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997) Officer who lawfully stopped vehicle may order passengers out of vehicle without justification

7. Cases Based on Terry v. Ohio Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 492 (1998) Search of vehicle is not permitted incident to stopping vehicle to issue citation to driver Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) Defendant�s unprovoked flight on seeing officers and presence in heavy drug trafficking area provided reasonable suspicion to stop Terry v. Ohio accepts risk innocent people may be stopped Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000) Anonymous tip insufficient to support reasonable suspicion to stop; Alabama v. White, distinguished City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000) Checkpoint whose primary purpose is to detect illegal drugs is unconstitutional

8. Seizure of a Person Three levels of officer�s interaction with a person Interaction that does not constitute seizure Seizure that constitutes investigatory stop requiring reasonable suspicion Seizure that constitutes arrest requiring probable cause Definition of a seizure: when a reasonable person would have believed that he or she was not �free to leave� Modification of definition under California v. Hodari D. (1991) and Florida v. Bostick (1991)

9. California v. Hodari D. (1991) 499 US 621, 111 SCt 1547, 113 LEd2d 690 Officer chasing suspect, suspect drops object, and officer tackles suspect �Seizure� redefined Definition of seizure Applying actual physical force to suspect, or Suspect submitting to officer�s �show of authority� California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991).California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991).

10. Florida v. Bostick (1991) 501 US 429, 111 SCt 2382, 115 LEd2d 389 (1991) Officers boarding bus to ask consent to search for drugs Passengers are not automatically seized because officers boarded bus Court rejects �free to leave� standard in deciding this case Test: reasonable person would feel free to decline an officer�s requests or otherwise terminate encounter �Reasonable person� standard presupposes an innocent person Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991). Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991).

11. Factors in Determining Reasonable Suspicion Officer�s observations in light of officer�s training and experience Information received from others Time of day or night High-crime area? Suspect�s location to criminal activity Suspect�s reaction to and flight from officer Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) Officer�s knowledge of suspect�s past Suspect�s matching profile of criminal behavior Totality of circumstances is the test; see cases below. Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (1999). Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (1999). Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990). United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) at p. 281 of ASI. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981) at p. 277 of ASI. Totality of circumstances is the test; see cases below. Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (1999). Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (1999). Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990). United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) at p. 281 of ASI. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981) at p. 277 of ASI.

12. Whren v. United States (1996) Facts: traffic stop by drug officers Is pretextual stop unreasonable under Fourth Amendment? Ruling: When probable cause for traffic violation: officer�s motivation for making stop is irrelevant under Fourth Amendment Reasonable suspicion for traffic violation; U.S. v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001); U.S. v. Dumas, 94 F.3d 286 (7th Cir. 1996) Stop for improper racial purpose: analyze only under Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment Motivation is relevant for: DWI or license checkpoint, inventory search, or administrative search, which are not based on probable cause or reasonable suspicion City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 US 32 (2000) State v. McClendon, 350 NC 630 (1999) (adopting (Whren); State v. Hamilton, 125 N.C. App. 396 (1997); State v. Morocco, 99 N.C. App. 421 (1990) (no longer valid under Whren) State v. Hamilton, 125 N.C. App. 396 (1997). State v. Morocco, 99 N.C. App. 421 (1990) (ruling on officer�s motive effectively overruled by Hamilton and Whren v. United States). State v. McClendon, 350 N.C. 630 (1999). State v. Hamilton, 125 N.C. App. 396 (1997). State v. Morocco, 99 N.C. App. 421 (1990) (ruling on officer�s motive effectively overruled by Hamilton and Whren v. United States). State v. McClendon, 350 N.C. 630 (1999).

13. Driver�s License and Impaired Driving Checkpoints Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979); Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990); City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000) State v. Sanders, 112 N.C. App. 477 (1993) (SHP license check) State v. Barnes, 123 N.C. App. 144 (1996) (SHP DWI check) State v. Grooms, 126 N.C. App. 88 (1997) (Deputy sheriff license check) State v. Foreman, 351 N.C. 627 (2000) (avoid DWI checkpoint) State v. Tarlton, 146 N.C. App. 417 (2001) (SHP license check) State v. Colbert, 146 N.C. App. 506 (2001) (DWI checkpoint; advance plan for Alco-Sensor tests) State v. Mitchell, ___ N.C. App. ___ (11/19/02) (license check; supervisory approval & written guidelines not required) G.S. 20-16.3A

14. Alabama v. White (1990) 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 Reasonable suspicion to make investigative stop vehicle for drugs Anonymous telephone tip Amount of detail in tip Anonymous caller�s prediction of future events Anonymous information and law enforcement corroboration �Sufficient indicia of reliability� Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990). Pre-Alabama v. White case: State v. Cornelius, 104 N.C. App. 583 (1992).Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990). Pre-Alabama v. White case: State v. Cornelius, 104 N.C. App. 583 (1992).

15. Florida v. J.L. (2000) 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 Anonymous telephone call Young black male standing at bus stop, wearing plaid shirt, and carrying gun Officers go to bus stop and see male person matching description Male person makes no threatening or unusual movements Officer stops and frisks him Court�s ruling: information was insufficient to support stop and frisk Court distinguished rulings in Alabama v. White (1990) and Adams v. Williams (1972) Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (1999). Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990). Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972).Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (1999). Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990). Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972).

16. Anonymous Information and Reasonable Suspicion Pure anonymous telephone caller Anonymous caller giving some information about himself or herself Officer�s in-person contact with unknown person Basis of source�s knowledge Direct observation? Amount of detail given Reporting past or present criminal activity Prediction of future behavior Corroboration by law enforcement officer Need for immediate law enforcement response�report of person carrying bomb; erratic driving on highway; shooting in house State v. Watkins, 337 N.C. 437, 446 S.E.2d 67 (1994) . State v. Watkins, 337 N.C. 437, 446 S.E.2d 67 (1994) .

17. Anonymous Information State v. Hughes, 353 N.C. 200 (2000) (drugs; insufficient) State v. Bone, 354 N.C. 1 (2001) (murder; sufficient) State v. Brown, 142 N.C. App. 332 (2001) (drugs; insufficient) State v. Young, 148 N.C. App. 462 (2002) (armed robbery; sufficient) State v. Allison, 148 N.C. App. 702 (2002) (armed robbery; sufficient) US v. Wheat, 278 F3d 722 (8th Cir. 2001) (reckless driving stop; sufficient)

18. What Constitutes Reasonable Suspicion: State Cases State v. Butler, 331 N.C. 227 (1992) State v. Fleming, 106 N.C. App. 165 (1992) State v. Foreman, 351 N.C. 627 (2000) State v. Bonds, 139 N.C. App. 627 (2000) Reference to NHTSA website information State v. Watson, 122 N.C. App. 596 (1996) State v. Battle, 109 N.C. App. 367 (1993) (collective knowledge)

19. Length of Time to Conduct Investigative Stop Whether officer diligently pursued means of investigation likely to confirm or dispel suspicions quickly But courts generally should not second-guess whether officer should have used alternative investigative means Suspect�s reaction to officer�s stop Officer�s need to adjust response to what is happening Seriousness of crime Nervousness of suspect Stopping vehicles: license & registration check; motor vehicle and criminal record check Need to investigate other violations of law Cases: U.S. v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985); U.S. v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1985); State v. Jones, 96 N.C. App. 389 (1989); State v. Morocco, 99 N.C. App. 421 (1990); State v. Aubin, 100 N.C. App. 628 (1990); State v. Hunter, 107 N.C. App. 402 (1992); Rousselo v. Starling, 128 N.C. App. 439 (1998); State v. Falana, 129 N.C. App. 813 (1998); State v. McClendon, 350 N.C. 630 (1999); State v. Fisher, 141 N.C. App. 448 (2000); State v. Munoz, 141 N.C. App. 675 (2001) Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000).Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 121 S.Ct. 447, 148 L.Ed.2d 333 (2000).

20. Scope of Investigative Stop U.S. v. Shabazz, 993 F.2d 431 (5th Cir. 1993) Questioning unrelated to investigative stop are permissible unless they prolong stop During traffic stop, officer asks �Are any drugs or weapons in your car?� Other cases: U.S. Holt, 264 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2001); U.S. Childs, 277 F.3d 947 (7th Cir. 2002) State v. Kincaid, 147 N.C. App. 94 (2001) Questioning about another matter after traffic stop completed was permissible when defendant consented to questioning Asking consent to search during stop Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996) Asking consent to search after valid detention has ended Specific warning (�you are free to go�) is not required

21. Investigative Techniques During Investigative Stop Ordering driver and passengers out of vehicle Ordering them to stay in vehicle Using force Blocking suspect�s car with officers� cars Drawing weapon on suspect Making suspect lie on ground Handcuffing suspect Questioning State v. Benjamin, 124 N.C. App. 734 (1996) (Miranda warnings not required) Moving suspect for safety and security reasons or for identification by victim

22. Frisking People for Weapons Reasonable suspicion of danger is generally required Exception: dangerous crimes or crimes, such as drug trafficking, associated with possession of firearms Exception: execution of search warrant in nonpublic place Factors in determining reasonable suspicion Kind of crime for which person was stopped Information from others that person armed and dangerous Behavior of person to be frisked Bulge in suspect�s clothing or observation of object there Suspect�s prior criminal record and history of dangerousness Objective test�officer�s subjective beliefs irrelevant Arrest of person and whether frisk of companions is automatically permissible See Arrest, Search, and Investigation in North Carolina (2d ed. 1992), pages 105-106 . State v. Butler, 331 N.C. 227 (1992), page 337 of ASI. Officer�s experience that people involved in drug trafficking are often armed. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993).See Arrest, Search, and Investigation in North Carolina (2d ed. 1992), pages 105-106 . State v. Butler, 331 N.C. 227 (1992), page 337 of ASI. Officer�s experience that people involved in drug trafficking are often armed. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993).

23. Frisking People for Weapons Cases State v. Pearson, 348 NC 272 (1998) State v. McGirt, 345 NC 624 (1997), affirming, 122 NC App 237 (1996) Scope of frisk Plain feel rationale under Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 US 366, 113 S Ct 2130, 124 LEd2d 334 (1993) See Arrest, Search, and Investigation in North Carolina (2d ed. 1992), pages 105-106 . State v. Butler, 331 N.C. 227 (1992), page 337 of ASI. Officer�s experience that people involved in drug trafficking are often armed. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993).See Arrest, Search, and Investigation in North Carolina (2d ed. 1992), pages 105-106 . State v. Butler, 331 N.C. 227 (1992), page 337 of ASI. Officer�s experience that people involved in drug trafficking are often armed. Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993).

24. Plain Touch (Feel) Doctrine: Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) Officer must have justification to touch (feel) person or object Officer�s authority to frisk person for weapons Officer may not exceed scope of justification when touching (feeling) person or object Exceeding scope of frisk for weapons Incriminating character of object must become �immediately apparent� to officer �Immediately apparent� is equivalent to probable cause Cases: State v. Beveridge, 112 N.C. App. 688 (1993), aff�d per curiam, 336 N.C. 601 (1994); State v. Briggs, 140 N.C. App. 484 (2000) (felt cigar holder in defendant�s pocket�totality of circumstances); State v. Wilson, 112 N.C. App. 777 (1993); State v. Whitted, 112 N.C. App. 640 (1993); In re Whitley, 122 N.C. App. 290 (1996); State v. Benjamin, 124 N.C. App. 734 (1996) (�What is that� during frisk not subject to Miranda) Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993). State v. Whitted, 112 N.C. App. 640, 436 S.E.2d 275 (1993) (officer had probable cause for �pebble� being crack cocaine; Dickerson not discussed). State v. Sanders, 112 N.C. App. 477, 435 S.E.2d 842 (1993) (bulge in pocket gave authority to frisk; remanded for Dickerson issue). State v. Beveridge, 112 N.C. App. 688, 436 S.E.2d 912 (1993), affirmed per curiam, 336 N.C. 601, 444 S.E.2d 223 (1994) (officer exceeded scope of frisk when felt rolled-up plastic bag; curious language about questioning being improper). State v. Wilson, 112 N.C. App. 777, 437 S.E.2d 387 (1993) (frisk proper because immediately apparent lump in pocket was crack cocaine). See also In re Whitley, ___ N.C. App. ___ (4/16/96) (similar ruling).Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993). State v. Whitted, 112 N.C. App. 640, 436 S.E.2d 275 (1993) (officer had probable cause for �pebble� being crack cocaine; Dickerson not discussed). State v. Sanders, 112 N.C. App. 477, 435 S.E.2d 842 (1993) (bulge in pocket gave authority to frisk; remanded for Dickerson issue). State v. Beveridge, 112 N.C. App. 688, 436 S.E.2d 912 (1993), affirmed per curiam, 336 N.C. 601, 444 S.E.2d 223 (1994) (officer exceeded scope of frisk when felt rolled-up plastic bag; curious language about questioning being improper). State v. Wilson, 112 N.C. App. 777, 437 S.E.2d 387 (1993) (frisk proper because immediately apparent lump in pocket was crack cocaine). See also In re Whitley, ___ N.C. App. ___ (4/16/96) (similar ruling).

25. Search Incident to Arrest of Vehicle Occupant Must be arrest; writing citation is insufficient Knowles v. Iowa, 525 US 113 (1998) State v. Fisher, 141 NCApp 448 (2000) New York v. Belton, 453 US 454 (1981) Arrest of vehicle occupant Removal of occupants permitted before search Entire interior of vehicle Containers within interior of vehicle Cases: State v. Vancamp, 150 N.C.App. 347 (2002); State v. Andrews, 306 N.C. 144 (1982) ; State v. Cooper, 304 N.C. 701 (1982); State v. Clyburn, 120 N.C. App. 377 (1995); State v. Massenburg, 66 N.C. App. 127 (1984) New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981).New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981).

26. Search Incident to Arrest of Vehicle Occupant Other occupants Excludes trunk of vehicle, based on this justification New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981).New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981).

27. Other Permissible Searches or Seizures Without Probable Cause Vehicle �frisk� for weapons based on reasonable suspicion Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983); State v. Braxton, 90 N.C. App. 204 (1988) Impoundment and inventory of vehicle South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976); Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987); Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990); State v. Phifer, 297 NC 216 (1979); State v. Peaten, 110 NCApp 749 (1993) Pretext may be an issue Community caretaking function Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1983) Checking VIN on vehicle New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (1986) Protective sweep of home Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967)

28. Is There �Custody� under Miranda During Investigative Stop? State v. Benjamin, 124 N.C. App. 734 (1996) Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). Pennsylvania v. Bruder, 488 U.S. 9, 109 S.Ct. 205, 102 L.Ed.2d 172 (1988). State v. Benjamin, 124 N.C. App. 734, 478 S.E.2d 651 (1996). State v. Beasley, 104 N.C. App. 529, 410 S.E.2d 236 (1991). State v. Seagle, 96 N.C. App. 318, 385 S.E.2d 532 (1989). State v. Washington, 330 N.C. 188, 410 S.E.2d 55 (1991).Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). Pennsylvania v. Bruder, 488 U.S. 9, 109 S.Ct. 205, 102 L.Ed.2d 172 (1988). State v. Benjamin, 124 N.C. App. 734, 478 S.E.2d 651 (1996). State v. Beasley, 104 N.C. App. 529, 410 S.E.2d 236 (1991). State v. Seagle, 96 N.C. App. 318, 385 S.E.2d 532 (1989). State v. Washington, 330 N.C. 188, 410 S.E.2d 55 (1991).