{
  "id": 8553070,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. OSSIE SIMMONS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Simmons",
  "decision_date": "1970-12-30",
  "docket_number": "No. 708SC666",
  "first_page": "259",
  "last_page": "262",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "10 N.C. App. 259"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "154 S.E. 2d 95",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 N.C. 296",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567496
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/270/0296-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 S.E. 2d 25",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.C. 160",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571742
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/272/0160-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 S.E. 2d 637",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 N.C. App. 339",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552746
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/1/0339-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 S.E. 2d 911",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1953,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 N.C. 656",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8615595
      ],
      "year": 1953,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/238/0656-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 415,
    "char_count": 7387,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.512,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.636122320932634e-08,
      "percentile": 0.527633078221935
    },
    "sha256": "3747a5d2adf67c62872302ff816f2a88b0cbceb797c2e37b63d019b5102dd819",
    "simhash": "1:a78ba866b149ed94",
    "word_count": 1272
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:51:53.441044+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Brock and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. OSSIE SIMMONS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nBy the defendant\u2019s first assignment of error, he contends that it was error for the court to allow testimony concerning, and the introduction of, non-tax paid whiskey obtained without a search warrant over the defendant appellant\u2019s objection and motion to suppress. In State v. Ferguson, 238 N.C. 656, 78 S.E. 2d 911 (1953), two ABC officers stopped a car on a public highway. The officers walked back to the car and, looking in, saw on the floorboard back of the front seat a cardboard box containing 12 half gallon fruit jars of white whiskey, upon which there were no revenue stamps of the state or federal government. The officers testified that they were stopping cars in order to check driver\u2019s licenses. The Court said, quoting from G.S. 18-6, \u201cthat nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize any officer to search any automobile or other vehicle or baggage of any person without a search warrant duly issued, except where the officer sees or has absolute personal knowledge that there is intoxicating liquor in such vehicle or baggage.\u201d The Court further stated that the officer \u201csaw and had absolute personal knowledge that there was intoxicating liquor in the automobile,\u201d and that it necessarily followed that the defendant\u2019s exception based on the court\u2019s refusal to suppress the evidence was overruled. \u201cWhen the incriminating article is in plain view of the officers ... no search is necessary and the constitutional guaranty does not apply.\u201d State v. Colson, 1 N.C. App. 339, 161 S.E. 2d 637 (1968). \u201cWhat the officers saw through the windows of the car by the aid of a flashlight without opening the doors of the car to search were competent in evidence.\u201d State v. Craddock, 272 N.C. 160, 158 S.E. 2d 25 (1967). \u201cWhere no search is required, the constitutional guaranty is not applicable. The guaranty applies only in those instances where the seizure is assisted by a necessary search. It does not prohibit a seizure without a warrant where there is no need of a search, and where the contraband subject matter is fully disclosed and open to the eye and hand.\u201d State v. Kinley, 270 N.C. 296, 154 S.E. 2d 95 (1967).\nThe non-tax paid whiskey in this case was in plain view in the back seat of the defendant\u2019s car. The officers\u2019 uncontra-dicted testimony was that they saw the \u201cwhite plastic jugs\u201d from outside the car \u201cduring the commotion.\u201d State v. Ferguson, supra, held that seeing half gallon fruit jars through a car window in a cardboard box gave the officers both sight of and absolute personal knowledge of the presence of intoxicating whiskey in the automobile. The fact that such whiskey is now being transported in white plastic jugs rather than half gallon fruit jars does not lessen the impact of State v. Ferguson, supra.\nThe contraband material was in plain sight on the back seat and in the rear floorboard of defendant\u2019s car; the fact that it was in plain sight negated any requirement for a search warrant. We find no merit in the defendant\u2019s first assignment of error.\nDefendant\u2019s second assignment of error is that the court erred in admitting testimony of the officers that this type of plastic jug was often used to carry non-tax paid whiskey, because the fact that this type of jug was usually used to transport non-tax paid whiskey was not relevant. In our opinion the relevance of this evidence is too apparent to require discussion.\nNo error.\nJudges Brock and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan, by Staff Attorney Lloyd for the State.",
      "Turner and Harrison, by Fred W. Harrison for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. OSSIE SIMMONS\nNo. 708SC666\n(Filed 30 December 1970)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 84; Intoxicating Liquor \u00a7 12; Searches and Seizures \u00a7 1\u2014 warrantless seizure from car of plastic jugs containing whiskey \u2014 lawfulness\nNo search warrant was required for the seizure from defendant\u2019s car of white plastic jugs containing non-taxpaid whiskey where the jugs were in plain view of the officers from outside the car and no search was necessary for their discovery, and the trial court did not err in the admission of the whiskey and testimony relating to it. G.S. 18-6.\n2. Intoxicating Liquor \u00a7 12\u2014 plastic jugs used to carry non-taxpaid whiskey\u2014 relevancy of testimony\nIn this prosecution for possession and transportation of non-taxpaid whiskey wherein defendant contended that officers unlawfully seized plastic jugs containing non-taxpaid whiskey from his car without a warrant, testimony by officers that the type of jug observed in defendant\u2019s car was often used to carry non-taxpaid whiskey was relevant.\nAppeal from Bundy, Judge, 26 March 1970 Session of the Criminal Division of Superior Court of Lenoir County.\nDefendant was charged with and convicted of possession and transportation of non-tax paid whiskey.\nThe testimony of the two arresting officers tends to show that Deputy Garris received a phone call at his home and that as a result of this phone call, he called Deputy Harper, met him at the Sheriff\u2019s Office, and went to the street where the arrest was made in order to watch for the car being driven by the defendant. Deputy Garris got out of the car to walk down the street and see if the car in question was approaching. While he was gone, Deputy Harper saw the car in question pull in behind an apartment building. Deputy Harper pulled in behind the car being driven by the defendant and told the defendant that he wanted to see him. \u201cAt that time, he jumped back into his car, put it in reverse, and backed into the patrol car. He did this several times . . .\u201d Officer Garris then arrived on the scene. Officer Harper then testified that: \u201cOssie continued trying to get away from us by pulling. We put the handcuffs on him and put him in the back seat of the county car. I advised him of his rights.\u201d Officer Harper then testified that during the commotion, he saw a cardboard carton on the back seat of the defendant\u2019s car, that he saw two white plastic jugs on the floor of the back seat of defendant\u2019s car, and that the area was well lighted. \u201cThere were four white plastic jugs in the cardboard carton. I could see the tops of them. The lid was partly up on the cardboard carton and there were four white plastic jugs; and there were two sitting in the foot of the back seat of the same type. I could see these jugs prior to arresting Ossie. I could see them as soon as I got to the car before the arrest.\u201d The court then asked the witness if he saw the articles in question while still outside the car and the witness answered that he saw the articles from the sidewalk.\nAfter the defendant was placed under arrest in the county car the deputies removed the jugs, opened them and verified the fact that they contained non-tax paid whiskey.\nOfficer Harper testified on cross-examination that: \u201cI could not tell what was in the cardboard box other than the plastic jugs; and I could not \u2014 by looking into the car \u2014 tell what was in the plastic jugs.\u201d On redirect examination the witness testified that: \u201cI have seen plastic jugs like this before. Most of the non-taxpaid whiskey . . . Objection. Objection Overruled. Defendant\u2019s Exception No. 4. . . . that you get these days is in that type of jug. There were six jugs originally but a hole came in one in the Sheriff\u2019s office and it ran out on the floor.\u201d\nThe testimony of Officer Garris corroborated that of Officer Harper.\nAttorney General Morgan, by Staff Attorney Lloyd for the State.\nTurner and Harrison, by Fred W. Harrison for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0259-01",
  "first_page_order": 283,
  "last_page_order": 286
}