{ "id": 11888822, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GRANVILLE L. HENDRICKSON, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hendrickson", "decision_date": "1996-10-15", "docket_number": "No. COA95-1062", "first_page": "150", "last_page": "157", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "124 N.C. App. 150" } ], "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": "37 ALR5th 1", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 5th", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "104 L. Ed. 2d 1046", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "458 S.E.2d 519", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "523", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 N.C. App. 395", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11915438 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "399", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/119/0395-01" ] }, { "cite": "322 S.E.2d 140", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "147" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 251", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4750239 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "262" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0251-01" ] }, { "cite": "468 S.E.2d 245", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "343 N.C. 116", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 798857 ], "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/343/0116-01" ] }, { "cite": "459 S.E.2d 826", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "829", "parenthetical": "Greene, dissenting" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 N.C. App. 676", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11917063 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "681", "parenthetical": "Greene, dissenting" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/119/0676-01" ] }, { "cite": "490 U.S. 1", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 605100 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "6" }, { "page": "9-10" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/490/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "290 S.E.2d 706", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "305 N.C. 304", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569121, 8569032, 8569007, 8569080, 8569149 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/305/0304-04", "/nc/305/0304-02", "/nc/305/0304-01", "/nc/305/0304-03", "/nc/305/0304-05" ] }, { "cite": "284 S.E.2d 144", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "148" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "54 N.C. App. 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523688 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "498" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/54/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 L. Ed. 2d 143", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "444 U.S. 907", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11384974, 11385039 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/444/0907-01", "/us/444/0907-02" ] }, { "cite": "296 S.E.2d 473", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "478" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "59 N.C. App. 99", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525868 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "107" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/59/0099-01" ] }, { "cite": "448 U.S. 438", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1787623 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "440" }, { "page": "893-894" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/448/0438-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 L. Ed. 2d 1138", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "448 U.S. 908", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1787594, 1787651, 1787652 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/448/0908-01", "/us/448/0908-02", "/us/448/0908-03" ] }, { "cite": "446 U.S. 544", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6185389 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/446/0544-01" ] }, { "cite": "341 S.E.2d 36", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "315 N.C. 595", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4719265, 4714405, 4718935, 4716283, 4715262 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/315/0595-03", "/nc/315/0595-02", "/nc/315/0595-05", "/nc/315/0595-01", "/nc/315/0595-04" ] }, { "cite": "335 S.E.2d 60", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "64" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "77 N.C. App. 292", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522019 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "297" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/77/0292-01" ] }, { "cite": "252 S.E.2d 776", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "779" }, { "page": "779" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 N.C. 703", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570136 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "706" }, { "page": "706" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/296/0703-01" ] }, { "cite": "392 U.S. 1", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6167798 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/392/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "462 S.E.2d 524", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "341 N.C. 656", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 793056, 793186, 793211, 793107, 793243 ], "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/341/0656-02", "/nc/341/0656-05", "/nc/341/0656-03", "/nc/341/0656-01", "/nc/341/0656-04" ] }, { "cite": "446 S.E.2d 579", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "585" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "337 N.C. 132", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2550000 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "140-141" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/337/0132-01" ] }, { "cite": "459 S.E.2d 55", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "57" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 N.C. App. 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11916476 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "565" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/119/0562-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 821, "char_count": 17863, "ocr_confidence": 0.759, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.4991749915439126e-07, "percentile": 0.9228731095905591 }, "sha256": "84319629baa467c521182931c46841193c1eda7f64ac5d3f70f389860d4dd956", "simhash": "1:dab1c2b67d453f2e", "word_count": 2979 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:33.335576+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges JOHN and McGEE concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GRANVILLE L. HENDRICKSON, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ARNOLD, Chief Judge.\nDefendant first assigns error to the trial court\u2019s denial of his motion to suppress because the findings of fact are not supported by competent evidence in the record. We disagree.\n\u201cThis Court must determine whether these findings of fact support the trial court\u2019s conclusions of law, and if so, the trial court\u2019s conclusions of law are binding on appeal.\u201d State v. West, 119 N.C. App. 562, 565, 459 S.E.2d 55, 57 (citing State v. Brooks, 337 N.C. 132, 140-141, 446 S.E.2d 579, 585 (1994)), disc. review denied, 341 N.C. 656, 462 S.E.2d 524 (1995).\nDefendant specifically assigns error to Finding of Fact 13:\n13. Upon refusal to allow agent Weiss [sic] to look into the bag the Defendant was carrying, agent Weiss [sic] seized the bag from the Defendant and informed the Defendant that drug sniffing dog would be called to check out the bag.\nDefendant is correct that the trial judge erroneously found in Finding of Fact 13 that Agent Weis seized defendant\u2019s bag when it was really Agent Black who seized the bag. However, we find this to be harmless error. The trial court heard all of the evidence and inadvertently transposed the names of the agents in the order denying defendant\u2019s motion to suppress.\nDefendant\u2019s second assignment of error is that the trial court erred by concluding that the agents had reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts that defendant was engaged in criminal activity at the time of seizure and that they had probable cause to arrest defendant. We disagree with the defendant and find that reasonable suspicion and probable cause existed.\nDefendant argues that the agents conducted an unreasonable seizure of him which exceeded the scope of a permissible stop and frisk procedure, and that the arrest was not supported by probable cause.\nWe first address whether defendant was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court created a limited exception to the general rule that seizures of a person require probable cause in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968). \u201cThat approach, adopted by our Supreme Court in State v. Thompson, 296 N.C. 703, 706, 252 S.E.2d 776, 779 (1979), \u2018requires only that the officer have a \u201creasonable\u201d or \u201cfounded\u201d suspicion as justification for a limited investigative seizure.\u2019 \u201d State v. Perkerol, 77 N.C. App. 292, 297, 335 S.E.2d 60, 64 (1985), disc, review denied, 315 N.C. 595, 341 S.E.2d 36 (1986).\nFurthermore, the United States Supreme Court detailed a reasonableness requirement for seizures after its decision in United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 64 L. Ed. 2d 497, reh\u2019g denied, 448 U.S. 908, 65 L. Ed. 2d 1138 (1980).\nWhile the court has recognized that in some circumstances a person may be detained briefly without probable cause to arrest him, any curtailment of a person\u2019s liberty by the police must be supported at least by a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person seized is engaged in criminal activity.\nReid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 440, 65 L. Ed. 2d 890, 893-894 (1980). This standard \u201crequires that the court examine both the articulable facts known to the officers at the time they determined to approach and investigate the activities of [defendant], and the rational inferences which the officers were entitled to draw from those facts.\u201d State v. Casey, 59 N.C. App. 99, 107, 296 S.E.2d 473, 478 (1982). The circumstances leading to the seizure \u201cshould be viewed as a whole through the eyes of a reasonable and cautious police officer on the scene, guided by his experience and training.\u201d State v. Thompson, 296 N.C. 703, 706, 252 S.E.2d 776, 779, cert, denied, 444 U.S. 907, 62 L. Ed. 2d 143 (1979).\nAirport search cases based on \u201cdrug courier profiles\u201d must be reviewed on a case by case basis. State v. Grimmett, 54 N.C. App. 494, 498, 284 S.E.2d 144, 148 (1981), disc, review denied, 305 N.C. 304, 290 S.E.2d 706 (1982). Likewise, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 6, 104 L. Ed. 2d 1, 9-10 (1989), because the Ninth Circuit\u2019s approach was \u201ccontrary to the case-by-case determination of reasonable articulable suspicion based on all the facts.\u201d\nA \u201creasonable, articulable suspicion\u201d is not based on factors that \u201ctaken as a whole, could easily be associated with many travelers and would therefore subject them to . . . intrusions into their privacy.\u201d State v. Odum, 119 N.C. App. 676, 681, 459 S.E.2d 826, 829 (1995) (Greene, dissenting), rev\u2019d, 343 N.C. 116, 468 S.E.2d 245 (1996). A trained narcotics agent forms a reasonable, articulable suspicion that an individual is a drug courier on the basis of identifiable behaviors that are usually associated with drug couriers as opposed to law abiding citizens. This Court must review all the facts known to the narcotics agents at the time of the seizure to determine whether, taken as a whole, those factors formed a sufficient basis for a reasonable, articulable suspicion that this particular defendant was transporting narcotics. Id.\nThe facts in the present case show that Agent Weis received a tip from a source that the following would occur: (1) A man named Granville Hendrickson would be flying in on American Airlines Flight 863 from New York, a source city for narcotics, to Raleigh-Durham Airport; (2) he checked no bags and traveled only with a small black gym bag; (3) he purchased his ticket within an hour before departure of his flight from LaGuardia Airport, and (4) he purchased a one-way ticket with cash. Agent Weis confirmed this information with American Airlines reservations in Raleigh and Agent Black ran computer background checks on defendant in the.U.S. Customs and F.B.I. computers. The agents discovered that defendant had made a recent trip to Puerto Rico, also a known source for drugs, and that he had a prior conviction for possession of stolen property in Goldsboro, North Carolina. Adding to these factors was that once defendant arrived at the airport: (1) He made prolonged eye contact with Agents Weis and Black and Alston and appeared to be nervous; (2) upon making eye contact he began to walk at a rapid pace through the airport against the regular flow of traffic; (3) he made eye contact twice with Agent Weis while on the escalator to go to the baggage claim area; and (4) Agent Black observed him put his right hand in the pocket of his nylon jogging pants in such a way as it looked like he was reaching towards the center of his body and grabbing something and lifting it up as he walked. Other relevant factors in this case are: (1) Agent Weis has worked with the narcotics division of the SBI since 1987, started with the SBI in 1978 and has worked on over 260 drug interdiction cases; (2) Agent Black has worked with the narcotics division of the SBI since 1988, started with the SBI in 1977 and has worked on approximately 200 to 300 drug interdiction cases; (3) both agents testified that there are two main ways that drug couriers carry drugs, either on their person, in the crotch area if a male courier, or in their baggage; (4) the agents identified Miami, the Southern Florida area, the New York metropolitan area, Los Angeles and Southern Texas as being main source cities for North Carolina; and (5) Agent Black testified that New York City is a primary source city for North Carolina and that 90 percent of drug interdiction arrests made are of people traveling from New York to the Raleigh-Durham Airport.\nWhen deciding to approach defendant the agents took all of the above factors, the \u201ctotality of the circumstances,\u201d into consideration. When asked for his identification, defendant turned to open his duf-fle bag. This caused his jogging pants to pull a little tighter across his crotch area and allowed Agent Weis to notice a round, cookie shape that appeared very rigid under the clothes covering defendant\u2019s lower abdomen area. Agent Weis noted that this looked unnatural and he believed it to be contraband. At this time, the agents had a reasonable, articulable suspicion to seize defendant\u2019s bag and to hold it for a drug dog sniff. Up until the time that Agent Black seized defendant\u2019s bag, no seizure had occurred. Defendant was still free to leave and he even hailed a taxi during his conversation with the agents. Thus we find that based on the totality of the circumstances summarized above, the agents had a reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop defendant and to seize his bag.\nThe final issue to be addressed is whether the agents had the requisite probable cause to arrest defendant. With regards to the issue of probable cause, the North Carolina Supreme Court stated that a reviewing court\u2019s role \u201cis to determine whether the officer has acted as a man of reasonable caution who, in good faith and based upon practical consideration of everyday life, believed the suspect committed the crime for which he [i]s later charged.\u201d State v. Zuniga, 312 N.C. 251, 262, 322 S.E.2d 140, 147 (1984).\nFactors which a court may consider in determining whether probable cause to arrest exists include: (1) the time of day; (2) the defendant\u2019s suspicious behavior; (3) flight from the officer or the area; (4) the officer\u2019s knowledge of defendant\u2019s past criminal conduct, and . . . one\u2019s reputation for relevant criminal conduct may contribute to probable cause.\nState v. Watson, 119 N.C. App. 395, 399, 458 S.E.2d 519, 523 (1995) (citations omitted). The evidence presented in the instant case reveals: (1) The agents determined that defendant conformed to the drug courier profile; (2) the agents confirmed by examining defendant\u2019s identification that he was Granville Hendrickson, the same person about whom they had received a tip; (3) defendant made prolonged eye contact with the officers after deboarding the plane and quickly heading towards an airport exit; (4) while being asked for his identification, Weis noticed a round, rigid cookie shaped object under the clothes covering defendant\u2019s lower abdomen; (5) the agents were aware of defendant\u2019s past criminal conduct; and (6) defendant attempted to flee when the agents seized his bag and again when they tried to arrest him. Accordingly, we find that the agents had probable cause to arrest defendant.\nNo error.\nJudges JOHN and McGEE concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ARNOLD, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Special Deputy Attorney General Robert T. Hargett, for the State.", "Law Offices of George W. Hughes, by George W. Hughes and John F. Oates, Jr., for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GRANVILLE L. HENDRICKSON, Defendant\nNo. COA95-1062\n(Filed 15 October 1996)\n1. Evidence and Witnesses \u00a7 653 (NCI4th)\u2014 cocaine \u2014 motion to suppress \u2014 findings\u2014transposed names \u2014 harmless error\nThere was only harmless error in the denial of defendant\u2019s motion to suppress cocaine seized from his person in an airport where the trial court found that defendant\u2019s bag had been seized by Agent Weis when it was really Agent Black who seized the bag. The trial court inadvertently transposed the names of the agents.\nAm Jur 2d, Motions, Rules, and Orders \u00a7 26.\n2. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 80 (NCI4th)\u2014 cocaine \u2014 airport stop \u2014 reasonable suspicion\nThe trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion to suppress cocaine seized from his person in an airport by concluding that SBI agents had reasonable suspicion based on artic-ulable facts that defendant was engaged in criminal activity at the time of seizure where SBI agents identified defendant from a tip and the drug courier profile, they suspected defendant of concealing contraband in his crotch, they attempted to seize his bag for a drag dog sniff and defendant attempted to walk away with the bag, an agent said \u201cWhat\u2019s this?\u201d and reached for defendant\u2019s crotch, defendant attempted to flee, and cocaine was removed from defendant\u2019s crotch after he was subdued. All of the facts known to the narcotics agents at the time of the seizure, taken as a whole, formed a sufficient basis for a reasonable, articulable suspicion that this particular defendant was transporting narcotics.\nAm Jur 2d, Searches and Seizures \u00a7\u00a7 70, 71, 78. .\nLaw enforcement officer\u2019s authority, under Federal Constitution\u2019s Fourth Amendment, to stop and briefly detain, and to conduct limited protective search of or \u201cfrisk,\u201d for investigative purposes, person suspected of criminal activity \u2014 Supreme Court cases. 104 L. Ed. 2d 1046.\n3. Arrest and Bail \u00a7 69 (NCI4th)\u2014 drug courier profile\u2014 object under clothes \u2014 flight\u2014probable cause\nSBI agents had probable cause to arrest defendant for trafficking in cocaine where the evidence reveals that the agents determined that defendant conformed to the drug courier profile; the agents confirmed by examining defendant\u2019s identification that he was the person about whom they had received a tip; defendant made prolonged eye contact with the officers after deboarding the plane and quickly heading towards an airport exit; the agent noticed a round, rigid cookie shaped object in the lower abdomen under defendant\u2019s clothes while asking for defendant\u2019s identification; the agents were aware of defendant\u2019s past criminal conduct; and defendant attempted to flee when the agents seized his bag and again when they tried to arrest him.\nAm Jur 2d, Arrest \u00a7\u00a7 9, 39, 42; Searches and Seizures \u00a7\u00a7 70, 71.\nPropriety of stop and search by law enforcement officers based solely on drug courier profile. 37 ALR5th 1.\nAppeal by defendant from order entered 20 April 1995 by Judge Jack Thompson in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 May 1996.\nOn 15 August 1994, Special Agent William Weis with the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI), was working drug interdiction at the Raleigh-Durham Airport in Raleigh, North Carolina with SBI Agent Bruce Black. Agent Weis has worked for the SBI since 1978 and has worked with the narcotics section since 1987. He has worked on over 260 drag interdiction cases. Agent Black has experience with 200-300 drag interdiction cases and testified substantially the same as Agent Weis as to what narcotics agents look for in attempting to intercept drug couriers.\nAgent Weis testified that from his experience he has learned that drug couriers carry contraband in particular ways. In general, when carrying less than 10 ounces a male courier will carry it in his crotch area. On 15 August 1995, Weis received information, a tip, that defendant, Granville Hendrickson was traveling on American Airlines flight 863 from New York to Raleigh. Granville Hendrickson had purchased a one-way ticket with cash one hour before the flight and he had not checked any luggage. Weis confirmed the information through American Airlines reservations. Prior to the arrival of the flight Agent Black made inquiries on the U.S. Custom\u2019s Computer and the FBI\u2019s computer about Granville Hendrickson. The Customs computer showed that defendant had recently made a trip from North Carolina to Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is also known by agents to be a source area for cocaine. The FBI computer check showed that he had been convicted for possession of stolen property in Goldsboro, North Carolina.\nBefore the flight arrived the agents positioned themselves near the arrival gate and watched defendant get off the flight. As defendant walked into the gate, he made prolonged eye contact with Agent Weis and stared at two other officers. He walked at a rapid pace near the left hand wall and against the regular flow of pedestrian traffic towards the airport exit. Defendant made eye contact several more times with the agents and he put his right hand in his pants pocket in such a manner as it looked like he was reaching towards the center of his body and grabbing something and lifting it up as he walked. Defendant exited the airport terminal building and walked towards the taxi stand. Weis and Black approached him, identified themselves as officers, and asked if they could see his airline ticket. He responded that he did not have a ticket and he proceeded to hail a taxi. The agents then asked to see some identification and as he turned to get his passport out of his bag Weis noticed that defendant\u2019s nylon jogging pants pulled tight across his lower abdomen area revealing a round, cookie shape that appeared very rigid. Weis believed the object to be crack cocaine. The agents then asked defendant if he had anything on his person or in his bag that he should not have and he responded no. Weis asked defendant if they could look in his bag and defendant again said no. Weis then seized the bag and told defendant that they were going to hold his bag so that a drug dog could sniff it for contraband. Defendant tugged on the bag as if he was not going to turn it over to the agents and attempted to walk away from them. As defendant was attempting to leave, Weis reached towards defendant\u2019s lower abdomen area and asked him \u201cwhat\u2019s this?\u201d Weis felt the bulge that he had seen earlier. The bulge was hard and it confirmed Weis\u2019 suspicions. Defendant attempted to flee and the agents subdued him. Defendant was taken to a police substation at the airport. After defendant was arrested Weis removed cocaine from defendant\u2019s crotch and found a bag of crumbled crack cocaine in defendant\u2019s pants pocket.\nDefendant was charged with two counts of trafficking more than 200 but less than 400 grams of cocaine, by transportation and by possession. Defendant waived his right to a probable cause hearing and the Grand Jury of Wake County returned true bills of indictment on these charges 10 January 1995. On 6 February 1995, defendant filed a written waiver of arraignment, reserving his right to file a motion to suppress evidence. On 13 February 1995, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained in violation of his state and federal constitutional rights. Defendant appeals from the order denying his motion to suppress evidence.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Special Deputy Attorney General Robert T. Hargett, for the State.\nLaw Offices of George W. Hughes, by George W. Hughes and John F. Oates, Jr., for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0150-01", "first_page_order": 188, "last_page_order": 195 }