{ "id": 9126560, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JERMAINE CHADWICK", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Chadwick", "decision_date": "2002-03-05", "docket_number": "No. COA01-4", "first_page": "200", "last_page": "205", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "149 N.C. App. 200" } ], "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": "263 S.E.2d 711", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "718" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 445", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575234 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "455" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0445-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "411 S.E.2d 193", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "195", "parenthetical": "citing Wooten, 34 N.C. App. at 88, 237 S.E.2d at 304" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 N.C. App. 724", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523891 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "728", "parenthetical": "citing Wooten, 34 N.C. App. at 88, 237 S.E.2d at 304" }, { "page": "728" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/104/0724-01" ] }, { "cite": "268 S.E.2d 452", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "456" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 N.C. 678", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564413 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "683-84" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/300/0678-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 L. Ed. 1879", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "year": 1949, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "338 U.S. 160", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3943769 ], "year": 1949, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/338/0160-01" ] }, { "cite": "423 U.S. 411", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6177768 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/423/0411-01" ] }, { "cite": "261 S.E.2d 189", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "193", "parenthetical": "citing G.S. \u00a7 15A-401(b)(2)a; United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 46 L. Ed.2d 598 (1976)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 29", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573221 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "34", "parenthetical": "citing G.S. \u00a7 15A-401(b)(2)a; United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 46 L. Ed.2d 598 (1976)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0029-01" ] }, { "cite": "211 S.E.2d 207", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "211" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 387", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566890 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "393" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0387-01" ] }, { "cite": "272 S.E.2d 774", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "776", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Ketchie, 286 N.C. 387, 393, 211 S.E.2d 207, 211 (1975)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "50 N.C. App. 181", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 2676739 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "184", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Ketchie, 286 N.C. 387, 393, 211 S.E.2d 207, 211 (1975)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/50/0181-01" ] }, { "cite": "430 S.E.2d 484", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "488" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "110 N.C. App. 584", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526069 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "589-90" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/110/0584-01" ] }, { "cite": "496 U.S. 325", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12122945 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "332" }, { "page": "310" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/496/0325-01" ] }, { "cite": "516 S.E.2d 883", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "886" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "134 N.C. App. 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11143287 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "133" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/134/0130-01" ] }, { "cite": "544 S.E.2d 18", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "22", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Earhart, 134 N.C. App. 130, 133, 516 S.E.2d 883, 886 (1999)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "142 N.C. App. 614", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9442648 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "621", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Earhart, 134 N.C. App. 130, 133, 516 S.E.2d 883, 886 (1999)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/142/0614-01" ] }, { "cite": "195 S.E.2d 502", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 N.C. 203", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558310 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/283/0203-01" ] }, { "cite": "269 S.E.2d 125", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "128", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Streeter, 283 N.C. 203, 195 S.E.2d 502 (1973) (citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "301 N.C. 18", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561039 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "21", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Streeter, 283 N.C. 203, 195 S.E.2d 502 (1973) (citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/301/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "462 U.S. 213", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6187462 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "245-46" }, { "page": "553" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/462/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "400 S.E.2d 429", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "433", "parenthetical": "emphasis in original" }, { "page": "433" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "328 N.C. 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2537437 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "219", "parenthetical": "emphasis in original" }, { "page": "219" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/328/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "237 S.E.2d 301", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "304", "parenthetical": "emphasis in original" }, { "page": "304" }, { "page": "304" }, { "page": "305" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "34 N.C. App. 85", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8547176 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "88", "parenthetical": "emphasis in original" }, { "page": "88" }, { "page": "88" }, { "page": "89" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/34/0085-01" ] }, { "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": "140-41" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/337/0132-01" ] }, { "cite": "276 S.E.2d 480", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "482" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "51 N.C. App. 445", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 2646236 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "446" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/51/0445-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 669, "char_count": 12936, "ocr_confidence": 0.752, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.785262752130993e-07, "percentile": 0.8967515094509371 }, "sha256": "11c51296ea15f375d574a0a842a52403fb56e747f17a074e78d6595c7b1e82ae", "simhash": "1:49a3fc78524f9347", "word_count": 2086 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:06:37.161258+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges GREENE and HUNTER concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JERMAINE CHADWICK" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "TYSON, Judge.\nThe State of North Carolina appeals the trial court\u2019s order granting defendant\u2019s motion to suppress evidence. We reverse the trial court\u2019s order.\nDeputy Kirk Newkirk (\u201cDeputy Newkirk\u201d) received a page from a known informant at 12:30 a.m. on 16 December 1999 and returned the call. The informant advised Deputy Newkirk that someone known as \u201cBreeze,\u201d later identified as Jermaine Chadwick (\u201cdefendant\u201d), would deliver large amounts of cocaine to the parking lot of a Texaco gas station located at the corner of Highway 17 North and Piney Green Road to conduct a drug transaction. Deputy Newkirk testified at the hearing that he knew defendant \u201cfrom around town.\u201d Moments after the call, Deputy Newkirk set up surveillance in the area near the Texaco station with other officers from Onslow County and the Jacksonville police department. At approximately 1:18 a.m. Deputy Newkirk and the other officers observed a black Nissan Sentra automobile, driven by a black woman with an unidentified black man siting in the passenger seat, turn into the Texaco parking lot and park next to a telephone booth.\nThe \u201ctake down\u201d signal was given. Deputy Charles Carnes approached the passenger side of the car, his gun drawn, ordered defendant to exit the car, opened the door, pulled defendant to the ground, and handcuffed him. Deputy Carnes noticed a large lump in defendant\u2019s front pockets, conducted a pat-down search, and pulled the bulge out of defendant\u2019s pockets. The white powder was later identified as 112.4 grams of powdered cocaine. Defendant was detained while officers questioned the driver, Ms. Hatchell. Ms. Hatchell requested that she be allowed to return home to check on her child. Officers escorted Ms. Hatchell to her house where she consented to a search.\nAt the scene defendant made numerous incriminating statements to police. Deputies told defendant that Ms. Hatchell was escorting police to her house, and defendant told the deputies that he had placed marijuana in the closet and cocaine between the mattresses. Officers recovered three pounds of marijuana and one-half ounce of cocaine from that location. Defendant admitted that he owned those drugs. The deputies placed defendant into the patrol car. Defendant asked the deputies how they knew he was selling drugs because no one knew. Defendant was driven to the Onslow County Sheriff\u2019s Office where he was advised of his Miranda rights. The defendant then signed a waiver of his rights and communicated a statement admitting ownership of all the drugs. Defendant was released and no formal charges were filed at that time.\nOn 26 January 2000, Deputy Newkirk obtained a warrant, arrested defendant, and charged him with (1) trafficking cocaine by manufacturing, (2) trafficking cocaine by possession, (3) trafficking cocaine by delivery, (4) trafficking cocaine by transporting, (5) possession with intent to sell and deliver marijuana, and (6) manufacturing marijuana. The Onslow County Grand Jury indicted defendant on all offenses except trafficking in cocaine by delivery.\nDefendant filed a motion to suppress on 4 August 2000. At the hearing defendant offered no evidence. The trial court took the matter under advisement, and granted defendant\u2019s motion to suppress on 19 September 2000. The State appeals.\nII. Issue\nThe only issue on appeal is whether the officers and deputies had probable cause to arrest defendant.\nOrders of the superior court granting motions to suppress evidence are appealable to the appellate division prior to trial provided that the prosecutor certifies that the appeal is not taken for the purpose of delay and that the evidence is essential to the case. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-979 (1979); State v. Dobson, 51 N.C. App. 445, 446, 276 S.E.2d 480, 482 (1981). The State filed a certificate on 27 September 1999 complying with all of the requirements of G.S. \u00a7 15A-979, and the appeal is properly before us.\nOur review of a trial court\u2019s conclusions of law on a motion to suppress is de novo. State v. Brooks, 337 N.C. 132, 140-41, 446 S.E.2d 579, 585 (1994).\nA. Probable Cause Based On Informant\u2019s Tips\nThe State argues that the trial court erred by concluding that defendant\u2019s arrest was \u201cillegal, unlawful and in violation of Defendant\u2019s rights,\u201d and that the officers lacked probable cause to believe that defendant had committed or was committing a crime. We agree.\n\u201cAn arrest is constitutionally valid whenever there exists probable cause to make it.\u201d State v. Wooten, 34 N.C. App. 85, 88, 237 S.E.2d 301, 304 (1977) (emphasis in original).\n\u201c \u2018[PJrobable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity.\u2019 \u201d State v. Riggs, 328 N.C. 213, 219, 400 S.E.2d 429, 433 (1991) (emphasis in original) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 243 n.13, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527, 552 n.13 (1983)). \u201cProbable cause exists when there is \u2018a reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in believing the accused to be guilty.\u2019 \u201d State v. Joyner, 301 N.C. 18, 21, 269 S.E.2d 125, 128 (1980) (quoting State v. Streeter, 283 N.C. 203, 195 S.E.2d 502 (1973) (citation omitted)).\nProbable cause can be established through the use of informants. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527. \u201c \u2018In utilizing an informant\u2019s tip, probable cause is determined using a \u2018totality-of-the circumstances\u2019 analysis which \u2018permits a balanced assessment of the relative weights of all the various indicia of reliability (and unreliability) attending an informant\u2019s tip.\u2019 \u201d State v. Holmes, 142 N.C. App. 614, 621, 544 S.E.2d 18, 22 (2001) (quoting State v. Earhart, 134 N.C. App. 130, 133, 516 S.E.2d 883, 886 (1999)). A known informant\u2019s information may establish probable cause based on a reliable track record, or an anonymous informant\u2019s information may provide probable cause if the caller\u2019s information can be independently verified. Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 332, 110 L. Ed. 2d 301, 310 (1990); Gates, 462 U.S. at 245-46, 76 L. Ed. 2d at 553; State v. Trap, 110 N.C. App. 584, 589-90, 430 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1993); Riggs, 328 N.C. at 219, 400 S.E.2d at 433.\nAt bar the trial court concluded that the officers had \u201ca reasonable and articulate suspicion\u201d that defendant was transporting narcotics. It also concluded that the circumstances \u201creasonably justified a warrantless intrusion to stop and search the Defendant\u2019s person and property.\u201d The trial court then concluded, however, that defendant\u2019s arrest was unlawful and illegal because the officers did not have probable cause to believe that defendant \u201chad committed or was committing a crime.\u201d This ruling was error.\nDeputy Newkirk returned a known and reliable informant\u2019s page at 12:30 a.m. The informant furnished Deputy Newkirk detailed information including that defendant would be delivering a large amount of cocaine to a specific location in about fifty minutes. The informant told Deputy Newkirk that defendant was about to (1) deliver a large amount of cocaine to a specific location, (2) be driven by a black female in an older model four-door black Nissan Sentra, because defendant did not have a driver\u2019s license, (3) be taken to a Texaco station at the corner of Highway 17 North and Piney Green Road, (4) be traveling from a certain direction, (5) park next to a telephone booth in the parking lot, (6) act like he was there to use the telephone, and (7) conduct a drug transaction there.\nBased on information that a crime was in progress, Deputy Newkirk set up surveillance near the location provided by the known informant. Deputy Newkirk and other officers independently corroborated all the information given by the known informant with minute particularity. Deputy Newkirk testified that \u201cthis wasn\u2019t the first time that we \u2014 we had set a deal up with \u2014 with the defendant.\u201d Deputy Newkirk observed the older model four-door black Nissan Sentra pass by his surveillance location. Deputy Newkirk testified that at that moment he recognized defendant in the passenger seat. All of the officers observed the Nissan drive into the Texaco parking lot and drive toward the earlier described telephone booth. Deputy Newkirk testified that the confidential informant was known to him and had proven reliable on prior occasions.\nDeputy Newkirk and the other officers verified all of the informant\u2019s information which proved to be reliable to the smallest detail. All of these factors establish that Deputy Newkirk and the other officers had probable cause to seize, arrest and search defendant. \u201c \u2018[P]robable cause to arrest and search defendant existed on the basis of the minute particularity with which the informant described defendant and the physical and independent verification of this description\u2019 by the officer.\u201d State v. Ellis, 50 N.C. App. 181, 184, 272 S.E.2d 774, 776 (1980) (quoting State v. Ketchie, 286 N.C. 387, 393, 211 S.E.2d 207, 211 (1975)). \u201cOnce he corroborated the description of the defendant and his presence at the named location, [Deputy Newkirk] had reasonable grounds to believe a felony was being committed in his presence which in turn created probable cause to arrest and search defendant.\u201d Wooten, 34 N.C. App. at 88, 237 S.E.2d at 304. We hold that these facts and circumstances sufficiently established an indicia of reliability that defendant was engaged in criminal activity to provide the officers with probable cause to seize and arrest defendant based on a known reliable informant\u2019s tip independently corroborated and verified by the officers in minute detail.\nB. Warrantless Arrest and Search\n\u201cPolice officers may arrest without a warrant any person who they have probable cause to believe has committed a felony.\u201d State v. Hunter, 299 N.C. 29, 34, 261 S.E.2d 189, 193 (1980) (citing G.S. \u00a7 15A-401(b)(2)a; United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 46 L. Ed.2d 598 (1976)). \u201cA warrantless arrest is lawful if based upon probable cause, Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 93 L. Ed. 1879 (1949); State v. Phillips, 300 N.C. 678, 683-84, 268 S.E.2d 452, 456 (1980), and permitted by state law.\u201d State v. Mills, 104 N.C. App. 724, 728, 411 S.E.2d 193, 195 (1991) (citing Wooten, 34 N.C. App. at 88, 237 S.E.2d at 304).\nTransporting large amounts of cocaine is felonious criminal activity. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 90-95 (2001). The deputies and officers had probable cause to believe that defendant was transporting large quantities of cocaine. We hold that the officers and deputies had probable cause to believe that defendant was engaged in criminal activity sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-401(b) (1999).\n\u201cAn officer may conduct a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest.\u201d Mills, 104 N.C. App. at 728, 411 S.E.2d at 195 (citing State v. Hardy, 299 N.C. 445, 455, 263 S.E.2d 711, 718 (1980)). \u201cA search is considered incident to arrest even if conducted prior to formal arrest if probable cause to arrest exists prior to the search and the evidence seized is not necessary to establish that probable cause.\u201d Id. (citing Wooten, 34 N.C. App. at 89, 237 S.E.2d at 305).\nProbable cause to arrest defendant existed prior to the defendant being searched. The large quantity of cocaine found on defendant was unnecessary to establish probable cause to arrest. We hold that the search of defendant was incident to a lawful arrest.\nThe trial court improperly granted defendant\u2019s motion to suppress the evidence. All evidence seized and statements made as a result of the lawful seizure, arrest and search of defendant were properly and legally obtained. We reverse the trial court\u2019s order to suppress.\nReversed.\nJudges GREENE and HUNTER concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "TYSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General William P. Hart and Assistant Attorney General Christopher W. Brooks, for the State.", "John W. Ceruzzi, for defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JERMAINE CHADWICK\nNo. COA01-4\n(Filed 5 March 2002)\nSearch and Seizure\u2014 tip \u2014 crime in progress \u2014 probable cause to arrest\nThe trial court improperly granted a motion to suppress narcotics where an officer received detailed information from a known and reliable informant indicating that defendant would be delivering a large amount of cocaine to a specific location; surveillance was set up; and officers independently corroborated the information given by the known informant with particularity. The circumstances established sufficient indicia of reliability that defendant was engaged in criminal activity to give officers probable cause to seize and arrest defendant. An officer may conduct a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest; the large quantity of cocaine found on defendant was unnecessary to establish probable cause to arrest.\nAppeal by the State from order entered 9 October 2000 by Judge W. Allen Cobb, Jr. in Onslow County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 January 2002.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General William P. Hart and Assistant Attorney General Christopher W. Brooks, for the State.\nJohn W. Ceruzzi, for defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0200-01", "first_page_order": 234, "last_page_order": 239 }