{ "id": 9366384, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHRISTOPHER SCOTT ROBINSON", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Robinson", "decision_date": "2002-02-05", "docket_number": "No. COA00-1247", "first_page": "422", "last_page": "435", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "148 N.C. App. 422" } ], "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": "198 S.E.2d 31", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "19 N.C. App. 89", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550368 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/19/0089-01" ] }, { "cite": "400 S.E.2d 429", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "434" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "328 N.C. 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2537437 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "222" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/328/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "380 U.S. 102", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1524630 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "109" }, { "page": "689" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/380/0102-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 S.E.2d 595", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "599-600" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "43 N.C. App. 450", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552600 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "455" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/43/0450-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 S.E.2d 755", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "765" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "278 N.C. 561", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561152 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "576" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/278/0561-01" ] }, { "cite": "429 S.E.2d 783", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "110 N.C. App. 413", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525713 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/110/0413-01" ] }, { "cite": "319 S.E.2d 254", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "257-58" }, { "page": "256" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 N.C. 633", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4681578 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "638" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/311/0633-01" ] }, { "cite": "381 S.E.2d 327", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "329" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "325 N.C. 217", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2491852 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "221" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/325/0217-01" ] }, { "cite": "462 U.S. 213", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6187462 ], "weight": 7, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "238-39" }, { "page": "548" }, { "page": "236", "parenthetical": "quoting United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 109, 13 L. Ed. 2d 684, 689 (1965)" }, { "page": "547", "parenthetical": "quoting United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 109, 13 L. Ed. 2d 684, 689 (1965)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/462/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "468 U.S. 796", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11340278 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/468/0796-01" ] }, { "cite": "487 U.S. 533", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1775229 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "590" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/487/0533-01" ] }, { "cite": "430 S.E.2d 462", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "466", "parenthetical": "\"the presence and participation of police officers in a search conducted by a probation officer, pursuant to a condition of probation, does not, standing alone, render the search invalid\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "110 N.C. App. 569", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526043 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "576", "parenthetical": "\"the presence and participation of police officers in a search conducted by a probation officer, pursuant to a condition of probation, does not, standing alone, render the search invalid\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/110/0569-01" ] }, { "cite": "483 U.S. 868", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 28251 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "880" }, { "page": "721" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/483/0868-01" ] }, { "cite": "526 U.S. 295", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11133135 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "300" }, { "page": "414" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/526/0295-01" ] }, { "cite": "433 S.E.2d 238", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "240" }, { "page": "243" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "111 N.C. App. 581", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522985 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "584" }, { "page": "589" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/111/0581-01" ] }, { "cite": "3388 U.S. 301", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1081, "char_count": 32932, "ocr_confidence": 0.758, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.071603650397358e-08, "percentile": 0.4667955544898564 }, "sha256": "ffa1fcb3837ac59f6c9e9500ff223ff15495280871467a7ebd5ff351c042a924", "simhash": "1:e898008b274e3e64", "word_count": 5182 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:14:25.013425+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge EAGLES and Judge HUDSON concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHRISTOPHER SCOTT ROBINSON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "CAMPBELL, Judge.\nDefendant was indicted for maintaining a dwelling for keeping and selling controlled substances, manufacturing marijuana, and possession with the intent to manufacture, sell or deliver marijuana. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence seized from his home pursuant to a search conducted on 8 September 1999. Defendant argued that the officers entered his house without a warrant, without probable cause, and in the absence of exigent circumstances, and that the subsequently obtained search warrant was not supported by probable cause. The trial court denied Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress and signed an order to that effect on 18 May 2000. This original order was misplaced and the trial court entered an exact copy of the original on 15 September 2000 nunc pro tunc 18 May 2000. Subsequent to the denial of his motion to suppress, Defendant pled guilty to manufacturing marijuana and maintaining a dwelling for keeping and selling controlled substances. Defendant received a suspended prison sentence with supervised probation for three years. From the denial of his motion to suppress, Defendant appeals pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-979(b).\nThe facts pertinent to this appeal are as follows: On 31 August 1999, Captain Mardy Benson (\u201cCaptain Benson\u201d) of the Johnston County Sheriffs Department received an anonymous tip advising that the informant had been present at a store and overheard a conversation concerning Christopher Robinson (\u201cRobinson,\u201d or \u201cDefendant\u201d) and a marijuana growing operation located in the bedrooms of Robinson\u2019s house. Specifically, the anonymous informant overheard that Robinson was on probation, that Robinson\u2019s probation officer had come by Robinson\u2019s house, and that Robinson could not believe his probation officer had not seen the grow lights or smelled the marijuana. The informant further overheard that someone was coming by Robinson\u2019s house to pick up some marijuana that had been harvested from the plants growing in the house, that the marijuana growing operation was a hydroponic system, and that Robinson\u2019s wife\u2019s name was Terrell. The informant also advised Captain Benson that she did not know Robinson.\nCaptain Benson informed Agent A.W. Bryan (\u201cAgent Bryan\u201d), a detective on the Johnston County Interagency Drug Task Force, of the details of this anonymous tip. Agent Bryan recognized the name Christopher Robinson and, upon investigation, discovered that she had arrested Christopher Robinson on 15 May 1998 and charged him with maintaining a place to keep controlled substances, possession with intent to manufacture, sell and deliver marijuana, and manufacturing marijuana. This earlier arrest of Robinson was the result of a consensual search of Robinson\u2019s residence, which led to the discovery of approximately ten marijuana plants in various stages of growth and cultivation, grow lamps, a bag containing approximately 0.2 grams of marijuana, and other paraphernalia commonly used in the indoor cultivation and manufacture of marijuana. This growing operation was primarily located in the bedroom closet of Robinson\u2019s then residence.\nAfter receiving the information from the anonymous tip, Agent Bryan contacted the Johnston County Probation Parole Office and spoke with Officer Stephen Wood (\u201cOfficer Wood\u201d), who informed Agent Bryan that Robinson was still on probation from this earlier drug offense, and as a special condition of his probation, Robinson had agreed to submit to warrantless searches of his person and residence. Agent Bryan and Officer Wood discussed setting up a date and time at which to attempt to conduct a warrantless search of Robinson\u2019s house pursuant to his probation.\nOn 7 September 1999, Agent Bryan and Officer Wood decided that they would go to Robinson\u2019s house the following night. Officer Wood would attempt to gain consent to search the house, and if Robinson refused to consent, he would be arrested for a probation violation. Agent Bryan and other officers of the Interagency Drug Task Force planned to be at a prearranged location in the general area of Robinson\u2019s house in case Officer Wood needed some assistance.\nOn 8 September 1999, Officer Wood and Probation Officer Jansen Lee (\u201cOfficer Lee\u201d) went to Robinson\u2019s house, located at 3388 U.S. 301 South, to attempt to gain consent to search. When the officers arrived, Robinson stepped off the front porch and met them in front of the house. Officer Wood asked Robinson for consent to search the house. After conferring with Terrell Allen (\u201cAllen\u201d), who the record indicates is Robinson\u2019s girlfriend and not his wife, and who had joined Robinson and the officers outside, Robinson refused to grant consent for a search. Officer Wood explained to Robinson that his refusal to consent was a violation of his probation and that he was going to be arrested. Robinson replied, \u201cOkay. You can arrest me.\u201d Robinson was arrested and taken to Johnston County Jail. Agent Bryan, stationed at the prearranged location with other agents of the Drug Task Force, was notified of Robinson\u2019s arrest.\nAt that point, Agent Bryan and the other officers decided to go to the house themselves to attempt to obtain consent to search from Allen, who they knew to be there based on Officer Wood\u2019s earlier encounter with her. Lieutenant Daughtry and Special Agent Parrish knocked on the front door and identified themselves. Agent Bryan remained stationed near her car, which was parked at the front of the driveway, approximately ten feet from the house. The driveway ran along the right side of the house, placing Agent Bryan and her car in close proximity to an air-conditioning unit which was located on the ground immediately beside the house. Lieutenant Daughtry and Agent Parrish received no response in their repeated attempts to get someone to come to the door. Meanwhile, from her location approximately three to five feet from a window of the house, Agent Bryan observed movement inside the house. Lieutenant Daughtry and Agent Parrish then joined Agent Bryan at her location on the right side of the house. From this location, the officers smelled a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the house, in and around the vicinity of the air-conditioning unit.\nThe officers then decided to return to their prearranged location to meet with other agents and decide how to proceed. Upon their return to the prearranged location, Lieutenant Daughtry decided to call the house to talk with Allen in another attempt to gain consent to search. Lieutenant Daughtry spoke with Allen over the phone and Allen refused to grant consent. Allen also told Lieutenant Daughtry that she wanted to contact her lawyer.\nAt this time, the officers called District Attorney Tom Lock to explain the situation and make sure there were sufficient exigent circumstances present to allow the officers to enter the house without a warrant in order to secure the premises and prevent the destruction of any evidence. District Attorney Lock told the officers that they could enter the house without a warrant, and the officers returned to the house to do so.\nAfter another unsuccessful attempt to get a response from knocking on the front door, the officers broke into the house. Once inside, the officers restrained Allen and conducted a protective sweep of the house to search for any other inhabitants and secure the premises and any evidence that could possibly be destroyed. Agent Bryan then went back to her office and prepared the search warrant application that was submitted to the magistrate.\nAs part of the search warrant application, Agent Bryan swore to the following: (1) Robinson\u2019s previous arrest on drug charges and the evidence that was discovered upon searching Robinson\u2019s house in connection with this previous arrest; (2) the anonymous tip received by Captain Benson concerning Robinson and a marijuana growing operation; (3) Agent Bryan\u2019s confirmation through Officer Wood that Robinson was in fact on probation; (4) Robinson\u2019s refusal to consent to a search of the house; (5) Robinson\u2019s subsequent arrest for a probation violation for refusing to consent; (6) the subsequent unsuccessful attempt to secure consent to search from Allen; (7) Agent Bryan\u2019s observation of movement inside the house; and (8) the officers\u2019 detection of the odor of marijuana emanating from the house. Based on these facts and her law enforcement experience, Agent Bryan gave her opinion that probable cause was present to believe that marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and other indicia of drug activity were present in and around Robinson\u2019s house. The magistrate issued the search warrant and the officers returned to Robinson\u2019s house to conduct the search. The officers\u2019 search resulted in the seizure of marijuana, marijuana cultivation paraphernalia, and a .12-gauge shotgun.\nDefendant brings forward numerous assignments of error which present three arguments against the trial court\u2019s denial of Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress. Defendant also assigns error to the trial court\u2019s failure to appoint counsel to perfect his appeal. After a careful review of the record, briefs, and transcript, we affirm the trial court\u2019s denial of Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress.\n\u201cUpon a voir dire hearing pursuant to a motion to suppress evidence, the trial court\u2019s findings of fact, if supported by competent evidence, are conclusive and binding on the appellate courts. The conclusions drawn from the facts found are, however, reviewable.\u201d State v. Wallace, 111 N.C. App. 581, 584, 433 S.E.2d 238, 240 (1993).\nDefendant first contends that the trial court erred in not granting his motion to suppress on the ground that the law enforcement officers unlawfully attempted to have a probation officer conduct a warrantless search of Defendant\u2019s residence as part of their criminal investigation, and not as part of the probation supervision process. Defendant\u2019s argument has no merit.\n\u201cThe touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness, and the reasonableness of a search is determined \u2018by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual\u2019s privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.\u2019 \u201d United States v. Knights, - U.S. -, -, \u2014 L. Ed. 2d -, - (No. 00-1260, filed 10 December 2001) (quoting Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 300, 143 L. Ed. 2d 408, 414 (1999)). Defendant\u2019s status as a probationer subject to a search condition bears on both sides of that balance. \u201cJust as other punishments for criminal convictions curtail an offender\u2019s freedoms, a court granting probation may impose reasonable conditions that deprive the offender of some freedoms enjoyed by law-abiding citizens.\u201d Id. In the instant case, as a special condition of probation for his previous drug conviction, Defendant was required to \u201c[s]ubmit at reasonable times to warrant-less searches by a probation officer of his person and of his vehicle and premises while he is present, for purposes specified by the court and reasonably related to his probation supervision . . . .\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1343(b1)(7) (1999). This probation condition significantly diminished Defendant\u2019s reasonable expectation of privacy.\n\u201cIn assessing the governmental interest side of the balance, it must be remembered that \u2018the very assumption of the institution of probation\u2019 is that the probationer \u2018is more likely than the ordinary citizen to violate the law.\u2019 \u201d Knights, \u2014 U.S. at \u2014, \u2014 L. Ed. 2d at \u2014 (quoting Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 880, 97 L. Ed. 2d 709, 721 (1987)). Accordingly, the State\u2019s \u201cinterest in apprehending violators of the criminal law, thereby protecting potential victims of criminal enterprise, may therefore justifiably focus on probationers in a way that it does not on the ordinary citizen.\u201d Id.\nNonetheless, Defendant contends that Agent Bryan used Officer Wood\u2019s authority to search Defendant in lieu of obtaining a search warrant, thereby resulting in an attempt by Officer Wood to gain consent to search Defendant\u2019s house which was not in furtherance of the supervisory goals of probation, and was therefore unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The record shows that after receiving an anonymous tip indicating that Defendant was growing marijuana in his house, Agent Bryan provided that information to Officer Wood, who was Defendant\u2019s probation officer as a result of an earlier offense likewise involving the indoor cultivation of marijuana. This information indicated to Officer Wood that Defendant was in violation of his probation. It clearly furthered the supervisory goals of probation for Agent Bryan to forward this information to Officer Wood, and for Officer Wood to attempt to investigate this information further by seeking Defendant\u2019s consent to a search of the house. The fact that Agent Bryan and other officers were in the general area of Defendant\u2019s home when Officer Wood approached him about consenting to a search does not affect the legality of Officer Wood\u2019s conduct. See State v. Church, 110 N.C. App. 569, 576, 430 S.E.2d 462, 466 (1993) (\u201cthe presence and participation of police officers in a search conducted by a probation officer, pursuant to a condition of probation, does not, standing alone, render the search invalid\u201d). Further, in Knights, the United States Supreme Court recently held that a law enforcement officer\u2019s search of a probationer subject to a search condition does not violate the Fourth Amendment when the law enforcement officer has reasonable suspicion that the probationer is engaged in criminal activity. Knights, - U.S. at -, \u2014 L. Ed. 2d at -. Thus, the Fourth Amendment does not limit searches pursuant to probation conditions to those searches that have a \u201cprobationary purpose.\u201d Id. Accordingly, we overrule Defendant\u2019s first assignment of error.\nNext, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in its conclusion that the officers\u2019 warrantless entry into Defendant\u2019s home was justified by exigent circumstances. Assuming, arguendo, that the officers\u2019 warrantless entry into Defendant\u2019s home was not justified by exigent circumstances, the evidence later seized as a result of the subsequently obtained search warrant is nevertheless admissible under the independent source doctrine.\n\u201cThe exclusionary rule prohibits introduction into evidence of tangible materials seized during an unlawful search.\u201d Wallace, 111 N.C. App. at 589, 433 S.E.2d at 243 (citing Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 101 L. Ed. 2d 472 (1988)). However, evidence is not to be excluded if the connection between the unlawful search and the discovery and seizure of the evidence is so attenuated as to dissipate the taint, as where the police had an independent source for discovery of the evidence. Id. \u201cThe independent source doctrine permits the introduction of evidence initially discovered during, or as a consequence of, an unlawful search, but later obtained independently from lawful activities untainted by the initial illegality.\u201d Id. However, \u201c[a]ny search pursuant to a warrant is not a genuinely independent source of information sufficient to remove the taint of an earlier unlawful entry if the warrant was either prompted by what officers saw in the initial unlawful entry, or if the information obtained during the entry was presented to the Magistrate and affected his decision to issue the search warrant.\u201d Id. at 590, 433 S.E.2d at 243.\nIn applying the independent source doctrine in Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 82 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1984), the United States Supreme Court held that a search warrant was valid where the information used to obtain the search warrant was not derived from an initial unlawful entry, but rather came from sources wholly unconnected with the unlawful entry and was known to the agents well before the initial unlawful entry. Thus, the dispositive question is whether the search warrant in the case sub judice was based on, or prompted by, information obtained from the officers\u2019 warrantless entry, or was it based on information acquired independently of the warrantless entry so as to purge the search warrant of the primary taint.\nIn the instant case, the officers had acquired information from an anonymous informant and decided to investigate further. Upon investigation, the officers corroborated some of the information provided by the informant. The officers attempted to gain consent to search Defendant\u2019s house, but were denied. While attempting to gain consent, the officers discovered further evidence corroborating the informant\u2019s tip. The officers then entered the home to secure it and any evidence it might contain, and then went to apply for a search warrant. In the search warrant application, the affiant referenced as grounds for probable cause (1) the informant\u2019s tip, (2) Defendant\u2019s refusal to consent to a search of the house, and (3) and the corroborating evidence, including the strong odor of marijuana, obtained while legally on Defendant\u2019s property attempting to gain consent to search. The warrant application contained no information concerning what the officers observed when they initially entered the house without a warrant. Nor is there any indication that the search warrant application was prompted by what the officers saw in the warrantless entry. Thus, the search warrant was not tainted by the officers\u2019 war-rantless entry. Accordingly, Defendant\u2019s second assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant further contends that the trial court erred in concluding that Agent Bryan\u2019s affidavit provided a sufficient showing of probable cause to support the magistrate\u2019s issuance of the search warrant. We disagree.\nIn determining whether probable cause exists for the issuance of a search warrant, the \u201ctotality of the circumstances\u201d test enunciated in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983), is to be applied. State v. Beam, 325 N.C. 217, 381 S.E.2d 327 (1989); State v. Arrington, 311 N.C. 633, 319 S.E.2d 254 (1984); State v. Witherspoon, 110 N.C. App. 413, 429 S.E.2d 783 (1993). The \u201ctotality of the circumstances\u201d test has been described as follows:\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 crime will be found in a particular place. And the duty of the reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a \u201csubstantial basis for . . . concluding]\u201d that probable cause existed.[citation omitted].\nArrington, 311 N.C. at 638, 319 S.E.2d at 257-58 (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527, 548 [1983]). \u201cThe affidavit is sufficient if it supplies reasonable cause to believe that the proposed search for evidence probably will reveal the presence upon the described premises of the items sought and that those items will aid in the apprehension or conviction of the offender.\u201d Id. at 636, 319 S.E.2d at 256. Under the \u201ctotality of the circumstances\u201d test, the dis-positive question is \u201cwhether the evidence as a whole provides a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause exists.\u201d Beam, 325 N.C. at 221, 381 S.E.2d at 329.\nIn the instant case, the magistrate had before him the following information: (1) that Defendant had previously been arrested on marijuana-related charges after a search of his residence revealed the presence of marijuana and paraphernalia used in the indoor cultivation of marijuana; (2) that Defendant was still on probation for this previous violation of the Controlled Substances Act; (3) that the affi-ant had received information that Defendant was again growing marijuana in his residence and that an individual was coming by the house to pick up some marijuana that had been harvested from the plants in the house; (4) that Defendant refused to allow his probation officer to conduct a warrantless search of his residence pursuant to the terms of Defendant\u2019s probation; (5) that Defendant\u2019s girlfriend also refused to consent to a search of the residence; (6) that while unsuccessfully attempting to get Defendant\u2019s girlfriend to respond to their knocks on the front door of the residence, the officers observed movement inside the house; and (7) that the officers smelled a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the house.\nThe magistrate was presented with a sworn affidavit signed by Agent Bryan. Agent Bryan\u2019s affidavit stated that Captain Benson had been informed by an anonymous informant that Defendant was growing marijuana in his house. \u201cThe police officer making the affidavit may do so in reliance upon information reported to him by other officers in the performance of their duties.\u201d State v. Vestal, 278 N.C. 561, 576, 180 S.E.2d 755, 765 (1971). Agent Bryan\u2019s affidavit reflected that the anonymous tip was based on a conversation overheard by the informant concerning Defendant and Defendant\u2019s marijuana growing operation. The informant provided the following details of this conversation: (1) where in the house the marijuana was being grown (two bedrooms), (2) that Defendant was currently on probation, (3) that an exchange of harvested marijuana was planned, and (4) that the marijuana growing operation was a hydroponic system. However, the affidavit does not contain any information as to when the informant overheard the conversation involving Defendant, when the planned exchange of marijuana was to take place, or where Defendant\u2019s residence was actually located. Further, the anonymous informant advised that she did not know Defendant. Agent Bryan\u2019s affidavit also lacks any statement that the informant had provided law enforcement officers with accurate and useable information in the past. Therefore, the anonymous informant\u2019s tip does not contain sufficient evidence of reliability to make it, standing alone, sufficient to support the magistrate\u2019s probable cause determination.\nHowever, Agent Bryan\u2019s affidavit contains several pieces of information that tend to corroborate the informant\u2019s anonymous tip. First, Agent Bryan\u2019s investigation revealed that Defendant was in fact on probation at the time. Second, both Defendant and Defendant\u2019s girlfriend refused to grant consent to law enforcement officers to conduct a search of the house, further corroborating the likelihood that contraband of some kind may be present in the house. Third, the affi-ant observed movement inside the house while the other officers were knocking on the front door in an unsuccessful attempt to gain consent to search. Finally, the affiant and the other officers smelled a strong odor of marijuana emanating from the house.\nDefendant contends that the information concerning movement inside the house and the odor of marijuana emanating from the house cannot be considered in determining whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause because that information itself was obtained pursuant to an illegal search. While Defendant concedes that the officers were entitled to go to the front door of Defendant\u2019s house for the purpose of a general inquiry or interview, see State v. Prevette, 43 N.C. App. 450, 455, 259 S.E.2d 595, 599-600 (1979), Defendant argues that the officers were not allowed to look around the yard and into the windows of the house. The legal questions are whether Agent Bryan had a right to be on the right side of the house when she looked through the window and observed movement inside the house, and whether all three officers had a right to be in the vicinity of the air-conditioning unit when they smelled the odor of marijuana.\nThe record reveals that Agent Bryan remained stationed near her car when the other officers approached the front door of Defendant\u2019s house. Agent Bryan\u2019s car was located in the driveway on the right side of the house, approximately ten feet away from the house. If the officers were entitled to enter Defendant\u2019s driveway and go to the front door, which is undisputed, there is nothing unlawful or unreasonable about Agent Bryan remaining in close proximity to her car approximately five feet from the house while the other two officers knocked on the front door. From this location, Agent Bryan observed movement inside the house. Agent Bryan then alerted the other two officers and they came over to her location on the right side of the house. The record then shows that the officers smelled marijuana emanating from the house in the general vicinity of the air-conditioning unit. The air-conditioning unit was located on the right side of the house approximately ten feet from Agent Bryan\u2019s car, which was legally parked in the driveway. Based on this record, we conclude that the officers had a right to be where they were when they observed the movement in the house and when they smelled the marijuana odor. Thus, this information was properly included in the search warrant application affidavit.\nUpon the totality of the circumstances presented, we conclude the magistrate in the instant case had ample basis upon which to find probable cause to authorize a search of Defendant\u2019s residence. Although the informant\u2019s tip was not reliable standing alone, the information contained in the tip was sufficiently corroborated to provide reasonable cause to believe that a search of Defendant\u2019s house would reveal the presence of marijuana. Consistent with the Fourth Amendment\u2019s strong preference for searches conducted pursuant to a warrant, reviewing courts should not have a negative attitude toward warrants and \u201cshould not invalidate warrants] by interpreting affidavitfs] in a hypertechnical, rather than a commonsense, manner.\u201d Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527, 547 (1983) (quoting United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 109, 13 L. Ed. 2d 684, 689 (1965)); see also State v. Riggs, 328 N.C. 213, 222, 400 S.E.2d 429, 434 (1991). \u201c[T]he resolution of doubtful or marginal cases in this area should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants.\u201d Id. at 237 n.10, 76 L. Ed. 2d at 547 n.10 (quoting same). In light of the Fourth Amendment\u2019s strong preference for searches pursuant to warrants, we agree with the magistrate\u2019s probable cause determination in the case sub judice.\nFinally, Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying court-appointed counsel to perfect his appeal. We conclude that any such error by the trial court was not prejudicial to Defendant.\nThe record discloses that Sharon Kristoff (\u201cMs. Kristoff\u201d), Defendant\u2019s attorney on appeal, was appointed to represent Defendant on 21 October 1999. Ms. Kristoff represented Defendant at the suppression hearing and his plea hearing. Following the trial court\u2019s sentencing of Defendant pursuant to his guilty plea, Ms. Kristoff gave oral notice of appeal from the trial court\u2019s denial of Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress. The trial court indicated that it would not sign the appellate entries appointing Ms. Kristoff to perfect Defendant\u2019s appeal until Defendant filled out a new affidavit of indi-gency. This request by the trial court was permitted under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-450, which provides: \u201c[t]he question of indigency may be determined or redetermined by the court at any stage of the action or proceeding at which an indigent is entitled to representation.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-450(c) (1999). The trial court subsequently denied court-appointed counsel to perfect Defendant\u2019s appeal.\nDefendant argues that the trial court committed plain error in denying his request for appointed counsel on appeal without citing to the affidavit of indigency or making findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding Defendant\u2019s financial status. In support of this contention, Defendant relies on State v. Haire, 19 N.C. App. 89, 198 S.E.2d 31 (1973), in which this Court held that the denial of counsel without evidence to support a finding of non-indigency entitled the defendant to a new trial. However, the facts of the case sub judice are readily distinguishable from those in Haire. In Haire, the defendant requested the appointment of counsel at the outset of jury selection. The court denied the defendant\u2019s request at that time and later made an inquiry into the defendant\u2019s financial status after the jury was selected. After this inquiry, the court entered an order denying the defendant\u2019s request for counsel, and the defendant was not represented at trial.\nIn the instant case, the record discloses that Defendant was represented by counsel at the suppression hearing and during the entry of his guilty plea. After the trial court refused to appoint counsel to perfect Defendant\u2019s appeal, Ms. Kristoff filed written notice of appeal on Defendant\u2019s behalf. Ms. Kristoff then took all the necessary steps to docket Defendant\u2019s appeal with this Court and followed that with the filing of a brief on Defendant\u2019s behalf. Unlike the defendant in Haire, we conclude that Defendant here has received adequate representation at all stages, including the suppression hearing, his plea hearing, and his appeal to this Court. Therefore, any error committed by the trial court in failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its denial of Defendant\u2019s request for appointed counsel on appeal was in no way prejudicial to Defendant\u2019s right to counsel. Therefore, Defendant\u2019s final assignment of error is overruled. However, we reiterate that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-450(c) provides that \u201c[t]he question of indigency may be determined or redetermined by the court at any stage of the action or proceeding at which an indigent is entitled to representation.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s arguments attacking the denial of his motion to suppress fail, and we affirm the trial court\u2019s judgment.\nAffirmed.\nChief Judge EAGLES and Judge HUDSON concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "CAMPBELL, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Michael C. Warren, for the State.", "KristoffLaw Offices, P.A., by Sharon H. Kristoff, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHRISTOPHER SCOTT ROBINSON\nNo. COA00-1247\n(Filed 5 February 2002)\n1. Search and Seizure\u2014 search by parole officer \u2014 not in lieu of search warrant\nThe trial court did not err by denying a defendant\u2019s motion to suppress marijuana eventually found after a parole officer attempted to gain entry into defendant\u2019s house pursuant to a parole condition allowing warrantless searches where defendant contended that the use of the parole officer\u2019s authority was in lieu of police officers obtaining a search warrant and was not in furtherance of the supervisory goals of probation. The fact that other police officers were in the area of defendant\u2019s home when the parole officer approached defendant did not affect the legality of the parole officer\u2019s conduct, and the Fourth Amendment does not limit searches pursuant to probation conditions to those searches that have a probationary purpose.\n2. Search and Seizure\u2014 unlawful warrantless entry \u2014 subsequent warrant \u2014 independent source doctrine\nAssuming that a warrantless entry by officers into defendant\u2019s home was not justified by exigent circumstances and was unlawful, evidence thereafter seized from the home pursuant to a subsequently obtained search warrant was admissible under the independent source doctrine where the search warrant was obtained on the basis of an informant\u2019s tip that defendant was growing marijuana in his home, corroborating evidence was obtained while officers were lawfully on the premises attempting to gain consent to search, and defendant refused to consent to a search; the warrant application contained no information concerning what the officers observed when they initially entered the home without a warrant; and there was no indication that the warrant was prompted by what the officers saw during the warrantless entry.\n3. Search and Seizure\u2014 warrant \u2014 probable cause \u2014 corroboration of tip\nA detective\u2019s affidavit provided a sufficient showing of probable cause to support issuance of a search warrant where an informant\u2019s anonymous tip was not reliable standing alone, but the information in the tip was sufficiently corroborated to provide reasonable cause to believe that a search of defendant\u2019s house would reveal marijuana.\n4. Appeal and Error\u2014 appointment of counsel refused \u2014 no prejudicial error\nThere was no prejudicial error in a marijuana prosecution where the court refused to appoint appellate counsel without making findings and conclusions regarding defendant\u2019s financial status but defendant\u2019s counsel took all of the necessary steps to docket defendant\u2019s appeal and filed a brief on defendant\u2019s behalf. The denial of defendant\u2019s request for appointed counsel was not prejudicial to defendant\u2019s right to counsel.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 18 May 2000 by Judge Knox V. Jenkins, Jr. in Johnston County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 October 2001.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Michael C. Warren, for the State.\nKristoffLaw Offices, P.A., by Sharon H. Kristoff, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0422-01", "first_page_order": 452, "last_page_order": 465 }