{ "id": 8525209, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN DURWOOD WATERFIELD", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Waterfield", "decision_date": "1994-12-06", "docket_number": "No. 941SC321", "first_page": "295", "last_page": "299", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "117 N.C. App. 295" } ], "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": "468 U.S. 796", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11340278 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "798" }, { "page": "604" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/468/0796-01" ] }, { "cite": "439 S.E.2d 161", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "335 N.C. 242", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2531076, 2526959, 2532723, 2531710, 2530751 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/335/0242-02", "/nc/335/0242-05", "/nc/335/0242-04", "/nc/335/0242-03", "/nc/335/0242-01" ] }, { "cite": "433 S.E.2d 238", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "243" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "111 N.C. App. 581", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522985 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/111/0581-01" ] }, { "cite": "374 S.E.2d 593", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "323 N.C. 626", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2563010, 2565451, 2563151, 2564880, 2560976 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/323/0626-03", "/nc/323/0626-04", "/nc/323/0626-01", "/nc/323/0626-05", "/nc/323/0626-02" ] }, { "cite": "373 S.E.2d 461", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "92 N.C. App. 94", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526431 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/92/0094-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 L.Ed.2d 1453", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "463 U.S. 1237", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6264512, 6263312, 6263604, 6263838, 6263038 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/463/1237-05", "/us/463/1237-02", "/us/463/1237-03", "/us/463/1237-04", "/us/463/1237-01" ] }, { "cite": "462 U.S. 213", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6187462 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "238" }, { "page": "548" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/462/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "319 S.E.2d 254", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "257-58" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 N.C. 633", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4681578 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/311/0633-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 466, "char_count": 8781, "ocr_confidence": 0.748, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08, "percentile": 0.36691617928303927 }, "sha256": "0496315ccf22fdda06d4920ecdeca9ff432348318fbe15645e81335148829cd1", "simhash": "1:961841fad34f8ebc", "word_count": 1380 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:31:41.091249+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges JOHNSON and WYNN concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN DURWOOD WATERFIELD" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "COZORT, Judge.\nDefendant pled guilty to possession with intent to sell or deliver marijuana while expressly reserving his right to appeal the trial court\u2019s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Defendant was sentenced to four years in prison. We affirm.\nEvidence presented by the State tends to show that on 13 May 1993 Sergeant Michael Jasileum, Detective Peter Mora, and Detective James Mulford of the Kill Devil Hills Police Department went to defendant\u2019s residence without a search warrant. Defendant refused their request to search the house. The officers stated that one of them would stay with defendant while the others obtained a search warrant. Defendant said that the officer could stay outside on the porch. When the police insisted that the defendant remain in view of the officer at all times, defendant shut the door to his residence and locked it. Detective Mulford kicked the door down, ran into defendant\u2019s home and forced him to sit in a chair. Detective Mora remained with defendant inside the residence for approximately one and a half hours while Sergeant Jasileum obtained a search warrant.\nIn support of his request for a search warrant, Sergeant Jasileum presented the magistrate with an affidavit outlining the information supplied by informants regarding defendant\u2019s illegal activities and the police actions to verify the information. On 1 April 1993 three individuals gave Detective Mora about three grams of marijuana they said defendant had given them. They stated that defendant had shown them marijuana kept in a padlocked cabinet in his bedroom at his residence. On 2 April 1993 a confidential source (\u201cCSI 1\u201d) told an officer he had seen marijuana at defendant\u2019s residence. He stated defendant kept the contraband in a padlocked cabinet in his bedroom. On 5 April 1993 officers visited defendant\u2019s residence and confirmed that defendant lived there. On 12 May 1993 another confidential source (\u201cCSI 2\u201d) reported to Sergeant Jasileum that within the last twenty-four hours the source had seen about a half pound of marijuana at defendant\u2019s residence and had seen defendant sell marijuana from his home. CSI 2 further stated that defendant kept the marijuana inside a padlocked cabinet in his bedroom. The magistrate issued the search warrant, and the subsequent search resulted in the seizure of 75.9 grams of marijuana and various items of drug paraphernalia.\nDefendant first argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion to suppress evidence obtained through the search warrant because there was no substantial basis for the magistrate to conclude that probable cause existed that drugs would be found in defendant\u2019s home. We disagree. The Supreme Court adopted a \u201ctotality of circumstances\u201d test to determine the sufficiency of affidavits based on informant hearsay to establish probable cause for Fourth Amendment purposes. State v. Arrington, 311 N.C. 633, 319 S.E.2d 254 (1984).\nThe task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the \u201cveracity\u201d and \u201cbasis of knowledge\u201d of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.\nId. at 638, 319 S.E.2d at 257-58 (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 76 L.Ed.2d 527, 548, reh\u2019g denied, 463 U.S. 1237, 77 L.Ed.2d 1453 (1983)). Proper deference is given to a magistrate\u2019s determination of the existence of probable cause. Arrington, 311 N.C. 633, 319 S.E.2d 254. In the present case there were three separate sources who stated defendant sold and possessed drugs at his residence, with CSI 2 reporting such activity having occurred within twenty-four hours before the search warrant was obtained. Furthermore, each source corroborated the same information regarding defendant\u2019s storage of marijuana in a padlocked cabinet in his bedroom. A common sense overview of the information supplied to the magistrate in this case provides sufficient probability of defendant\u2019s criminal activities to support the issuance of the search warrant.\nThe evidence itself is also sufficient to support the magistrate\u2019s determination of probable cause. Defendant claims the allegations of the first informant were stale and that the affidavit failed to show whether either informant\u2019s hearsay information was credible or reliable. This Court has ruled that probable cause may be established through timely and detailed information by an unfamiliar confidential informant when some of that information has been verified. State v. Barnhardt, 92 N.C. App. 94, 373 S.E.2d 461, disc. review denied, 323 N.C. 626, 374 S.E.2d 593 (1988). Although the affidavit made no mention of the reliability of any of the police sources, it did provide information of the presence and sale of marijuana at defendant\u2019s residence within twenty-four hours of the warrant application. It further detailed the location and manner of the storage of the marijuana by defendant which matched information supplied by other sources. We find the information presented was sufficient to support the magistrate\u2019s determination of probable cause to issue the search warrant.\nDefendant also argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the officers\u2019 entry and securing of defendant\u2019s residence without a search warrant violated his Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure. We find no violation. The exclusionary rule prohibits introduction of evidence obtained during an unlawful search. State v. Wallace, 111 N.C. App. 581, 433 S.E.2d 238, disc. review denied, 335 N.C. 242, 439 S.E.2d 161 (1993). However, evidence is not to be excluded if the connection between the unlawful entry and the discovery and seizure of the evidence \u201cis so attenuated as to dissipate the taint, as where police had an independent source for discovery of the evidence.\u201d Id. at 589, 433 S.E.2d at 243. The United States Supreme Court in Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 82 L.Ed.2d 599 (1984), held that where the information used to obtain a search warrant was not derived from the initial unlawful entry and was completely independent from it, the search warrant was valid. The Supreme Court also held that where officers \u201csecure the premises from within to preserve the status quo while others, in good faith, are in the process of obtaining a warrant, they do not violate the Fourth Amendment\u2019s proscription against unreasonable seizures.\u201d Segura, 468 U.S. at 798, 82 L.Ed.2d at 604.\nIn the instant case, the police secured defendant\u2019s house to maintain the status quo while officers left to apply for a search warrant. The officers who remained at defendant\u2019s residence conducted no initial search. The search warrant did not mention such entry as a source for probable cause, and the information used to obtain the warrant was entirely independent. The actions of the police officers in entering and securing defendant\u2019s residence while obtaining a search warrant based on independent information did not violate defendant\u2019s Fourth Amendment rights.\nAffirmed.\nJudges JOHNSON and WYNN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "COZORT, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Thomas O. Lawton, III, for the State.", "Sharp, Michael, Outten & Graham, by John C. Graham, III, for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN DURWOOD WATERFIELD\nNo. 941SC321\n(Filed 6 December 1994)\n1. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 109 (NCI4th)\u2014 probable cause for issuance of warrant\nThere was no merit to defendant\u2019s contention that the trial court erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion to suppress evidence obtained through a search warrant because there was no substantial basis for the magistrate to conclude that probable cause existed that drugs would be found in defendant\u2019s home, since there were three separate sources who stated defendant sold and possessed drugs at his residence, including one who reported such activity within twenty-four hours before the warrant was obtained, and each source corroborated the same information regarding defendant\u2019s storage of marijuana in a padlocked cabinet in his bedroom.\nAm Jur 2d, Searches and Seizures \u00a7 118.\n2. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 14 (NCI4th)\u2014 officers entering and securing defendant\u2019s residence \u2014 no illegal search and seizure\nThe actions of police officers in entering and securing defendant\u2019s residence while obtaining a search warrant based on independent information did not violate defendant\u2019s Fourth Amendment rights.\nAm Jur 2d, Searches and Seizures \u00a7\u00a7 36, 37.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 6 December 1993 by Judge William C. Griffin, Jr., in Dare County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 September 1994.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Thomas O. Lawton, III, for the State.\nSharp, Michael, Outten & Graham, by John C. Graham, III, for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0295-01", "first_page_order": 327, "last_page_order": 331 }