{ "id": 11918453, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM D. McLEAN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. McLean", "decision_date": "1995-11-21", "docket_number": "No. COA95-262", "first_page": "838", "last_page": "842", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "120 N.C. App. 838" } ], "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": "365 U.S. 610", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6169223 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "616-617" }, { "page": "833-834" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/365/0610-01" ] }, { "cite": "450 S.E.2d 524", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "526-527" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "117 N.C. App. 295", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525209 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "298" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/117/0295-01" ] }, { "cite": "468 U.S. 796", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11340278 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "811" }, { "page": "613" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/468/0796-01" ] }, { "cite": "459 S.E.2d 481", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "492", "parenthetical": "citing Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 811, 82 L. Ed. 2d 599, 613 (1984)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "340 N.C. 531", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 790158 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "548", "parenthetical": "citing Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 811, 82 L. Ed. 2d 599, 613 (1984)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/340/0531-01" ] }, { "cite": "487 U.S. 533", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1775229 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "536" }, { "page": "480" }, { "page": "542" }, { "page": "483-484", "parenthetical": "footnote omitted" }, { "page": "542" }, { "page": "484" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/487/0533-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 U.S. 257", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6163485 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1960, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "271" }, { "page": "708" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/362/0257-01" ] }, { "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": 4, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "240" }, { "page": "243" }, { "page": "243" }, { "page": "243" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "111 N.C. App. 581", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522985 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "584" }, { "page": "589" }, { "page": "589" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/111/0581-01" ] }, { "cite": "462 U.S. 213", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6187462 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "238" }, { "page": "548" }, { "page": "238-239" }, { "page": "548" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/462/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "430 S.E.2d 484", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "486" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "110 N.C. App. 584", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526069 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "587" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/110/0584-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)(l)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-108", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)(7)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 518, "char_count": 10090, "ocr_confidence": 0.748, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.444380749345947e-08, "percentile": 0.39777319063775535 }, "sha256": "87708e349b1837083b221d93bddf87ed3504ab11fc9600b25762f155444dbd28", "simhash": "1:fdeb5c6a025dce53", "word_count": 1565 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:17:04.771230+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges GREENE and McGEE concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM D. McLEAN" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, MARK D., Judge.\nOn 8 November 1994 defendant pled guilty to one count of intentionally maintaining a drug dwelling house, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-108(a)(7), and one count of possession with intent to manufacture marijuana, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95(a)(l). The trial court placed defendant on probation for three years. Prior to entry of his guilty plea, defendant reserved his right to appeal from the trial court\u2019s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.\nOn 15 December 1993 the managers of Oakwood Apartments in Lumberton, North Carolina, contacted the Lumberton Police Department (Department) concerning the discovery of marijuana plants in apartment V-2, defendant\u2019s apartment. In response the Department dispatched Patrolman Clay Rogers to the scene. Patrolman Rogers, accompanied by Oakwood managers, entered defendant\u2019s apartment and observed marijuana plants growing inside a closet. Afterwards, Patrolman Rogers removed everyone from the apartment and called detectives in the vice-narcotics unit. When Detectives M.J. Biggs and S.J. Morton arrived, Patrolman Rogers was standing at the front door. Also present were the Oakwood managers, Brenda Andrews and Carol Kendall, and the exterminators, Scott Fountain and Hector Bermudez.\nAndrews and Kendall related to Detective Biggs that Oakwood Management had given notice to tenants an exterminating company would be spraying apartments on 15 December 1993. During the extermination of defendant\u2019s apartment, Bermudez discovered a locked closet in an upstairs bedroom. Andrews and Kendall unlocked the closet to allow extermination of the area inside. After gaining entry to the locked closet, Andrews, Kendall, and Bermudez observed artificial light devices, plant food, plant tools, and approximately thirty plants in individual planters which they recognized to be marijuana. Subsequently, the Oakwood managers contacted police about discovering the marijuana plants.\nAfter interviewing Andrews, Kendall, Bermudez, Fountain, and Patrolman Rogers, Detective Biggs presented the magistrate with an affidavit in support of his request for a search warrant. Detective Biggs referenced, as grounds for probable cause, that Andrews, Kendall, and Bermudez observed approximately thirty marijuana plants, plant food, artificial lights, and plant tools inside the locked closet. Detective Biggs also included Patrolman Rogers\u2019 corroborative observations of the marijuana plants. At the suppression hearing, Detective Biggs indicated he would have attempted to obtain a warrant based solely on his conversation with the apartment managers and the exterminators.\nHaving obtained the warrant, Detective Biggs conducted a search of defendant\u2019s apartment and seized marijuana plants and paraphernalia.\nOn 4 May 1993 defendant moved to suppress all evidence seized as a result of the search. On 5 December 1994 the trial court entered an order nunc pro tunc denying defendant\u2019s motion to suppress. The trial court concluded, \u201cregardless of the unlawful entry by police officer, Clay Rogers, Detective M.J. Biggs and Detective S.J. Morton had sufficient probable cause in their probable cause affidavit exclusive of the entry by police officer [] Clay Rogers for the issuance of a search warrant and therefore the same is valid.\u201d We agree.\nThe sole issue presented on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion to suppress evidence seized at his apartment.\nThis Court\u2019s \u201creview of a denial of a motion to suppress is limited to determining whether the trial court\u2019s findings of facts are supported by competent evidence, whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of law, and whether the conclusions of law are legally correct.\u201d State v. Trapp, 110 N.C. App. 584, 587, 430 S.E.2d 484, 486 (1993).\nDefendant first contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress because police officers failed to comply with N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-974. Section 15A-974 requires suppression of evidence \u201cif it is obtained as a result of a substantial violation\u201d of the Criminal Procedure Act, Chapter 15A of the North Carolina General Statutes. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-974 (1988). Defendant, however, fails to present any argument concerning the alleged violation of section 15A-974, nor does he allege any other violation of Chapter 15A. Accordingly, this argument is deemed abandoned. See N.C.R. App. 28(b)(5).\nDefendant next contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress because the warrant authorizing the search was allegedly tainted by the unlawful entry and corroborative observations of Patrolman Rogers in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.\nThe threshold question is whether the affidavit contained information sufficient to establish probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant.\nWhen considering an application for a search warrant, magistrates, are required to make \u201ca practical, common-sense decision.\u201d Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 76 L. Ed. 2d. 527, 548 (1983). The standard is whether probable cause exists under the totality of the circumstances. State v. Wallace, 111 N.C. App. 581, 584, 433 S.E.2d 238, 240, disc. review denied, 335 N.C. 242, 439 S.E.2d 161 (1993). \u201c[T]he duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a \u2018substantial basis for ... concluding]\u2019 that probable cause existed.\u201d Gates, 462 U.S. at 238-239, 76 L. Ed. 2d. at 548 (quoting Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 271, 4 L. Ed. 2d 697, 708 (1960)).\nIn the present case, the managers of Oakwood Apartments initially contacted police about marijuana located in a locked closet at defendant\u2019s apartment. The two managers and an exterminator stated defendant possessed marijuana plants and paraphernalia in his residence. They each stated the marijuana plants were located in an upstairs locked closet. We believe the totality of these circumstances provided adequate, reliable information to constitute probable cause.\nWe now determine whether the search warrant was based upon sufficient information independent of and unrelated to the unlawful entry so as to purge the taint and validate the search warrant.\nThe exclusionary rule prohibits introduction of evidence seized during an unlawful search. Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 536, 101 L. Ed. 2d. 472, 480 (1988). The exclusionary rule does not apply, however, 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 Wallace, 111 N.C. App. at 589, 433 S.E.2d at 243. The independent source is not sufficient to purge the taint of an earlier unlawful entry if \u201cthe agents\u2019 decision to seek the warrant was prompted by what they had seen during the initial entry, or if information obtained during that entry was presented to the Magistrate and affected his decision to issue the warrant.\u201d Murray, 487 U.S. at 542, 101 L. Ed. 2d at 483-484 (footnote omitted).\nApplication of Murray reveals the information obtained from Andrews, Kendall, and Bermudez was sufficient to dissipate any taint arising from the unlawful entry. First, Detective Biggs, the officer who applied for the search warrant, did not participate in the unlawful entry. In addition, the information presented by Detective Biggs to the magistrate included sufficient evidence from independent, reliable sources to constitute probable cause \u201cindependent of and unrelated to the illegal entry.\u201d State v. Knight, 340 N.C. 531, 548, 459 S.E.2d 481, 492 (1995) (citing Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 811, 82 L. Ed. 2d 599, 613 (1984)). See State v. Waterfield, 117 N.C. App. 295, 298, 450 S.E.2d 524, 526-527 (1994). Therefore, we do not believe Officer Biggs\u2019 decision to seek the warrant was prompted by the unlawful entry but rather based on information \u201cindependently distinguishable so as to purge the search warrant of the primary taint.\u201d Wallace, 111 N.C. App. at 589, 433 S.E.2d at 243.\nSecond, the totality of the information obtained from Andrews, Kendall, and Bermudez, which independently coalesced to support a finding of probable cause, was \u201cwholly unconnected\u201d with the unlawful entry. See Id. at 590, 433 S.E.2d at 243. Therefore, we do not believe the corroborative information obtained from the warrantless search \u201caffected [the magistrate\u2019s] decision to issue the warrant.\u201d Murray, 487 U.S. at 542, 101 L. Ed. 2d at 484.\nAccordingly, we conclude the warrant authorizing the search of defendant\u2019s apartment was not tainted by the unlawful entry and therefore did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion to suppress.\nAffirmed.\nJudges GREENE and McGEE concur.\n. We assume, without deciding, that the warrantless entry of defendant\u2019s apartment was unlawful. See Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 616-617, 5 L. Ed. 2d 828, 833-834 (1961).", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, MARK D., Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General William B. Crumpler, for the State.", "Musselwhite, Musselwhite, Musselwhite & Branch, by David F. Branch, Jr., for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM D. McLEAN\nNo. COA95-262\n(Filed 21 November 1995)\nSearches and Seizures \u00a7 93 (NCI4th)\u2014 unlawful entry by police officer \u2014 taint purged by information from others\u2014 search warrant valid\nA search warrant was based upon information independent of and unrelated to an unlawful entry of defendant\u2019s apartment by a police officer so as to purge the taint and validate the search warrant where the managers of the apartment complex and an exterminator who treated defendant\u2019s apartment gave sufficient information about marijuana plants and drug paraphernalia found by them in the apartment to dissipate any taint arising from the officer\u2019s unlawful entry.\nAm Jur 2d, Searches and Seizures \u00a7 118.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 8 November 1994 by Judge Dexter Brooks in Robeson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 October 1995.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General William B. Crumpler, for the State.\nMusselwhite, Musselwhite, Musselwhite & Branch, by David F. Branch, Jr., for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0838-01", "first_page_order": 872, "last_page_order": 876 }