{ "id": 8955191, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JERMAINE McARN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. McArn", "decision_date": "2003-07-15", "docket_number": "No. COA02-918", "first_page": "209", "last_page": "214", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "159 N.C. App. 209" } ], "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": "555 S.E.2d 294", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "298" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "147 N.C. App. 94", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9378179 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "98" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/147/0094-01" ] }, { "cite": "496 U.S. 325", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12122945 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "329" }, { "page": "308" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/496/0325-01" ] }, { "cite": "529 U.S. 266", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9508406 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "270", "parenthetical": "quoting Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 329, 110 L. Ed. 2d 301, 308 (1990)" }, { "page": "260", "parenthetical": "quoting Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 329, 110 L. Ed. 2d 301, 308 (1990)" }, { "page": "272" }, { "page": "261" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/529/0266-01" ] }, { "cite": "533 S.E.2d 855", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "856" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "139 N.C. App. 627", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9497510 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "628" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/139/0627-01" ] }, { "cite": "446 S.E.2d 67", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "70", "parenthetical": "holding that a seizure of a person includes a brief investigatory detention such as those involved in the stopping of a vehicle" }, { "page": "70" }, { "page": "209" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "337 N.C. 437", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2549311 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "441", "parenthetical": "holding that a seizure of a person includes a brief investigatory detention such as those involved in the stopping of a vehicle" }, { "page": "441" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/337/0437-01" ] }, { "cite": "392 U.S. 1", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6167798 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "30" }, { "page": "911" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/392/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "116 L. Ed. 2d 101", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "502 U.S. 842", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6371424, 6369665, 6369475, 6370820, 6368805, 6369834, 6369998, 6368561, 6370643, 6370388, 6369240, 6371641, 6368410, 6369021, 6370175 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/502/0842-14", "/us/502/0842-07", "/us/502/0842-06", "/us/502/0842-13", "/us/502/0842-03", "/us/502/0842-08", "/us/502/0842-09", "/us/502/0842-02", "/us/502/0842-12", "/us/502/0842-11", "/us/502/0842-05", "/us/502/0842-15", "/us/502/0842-01", "/us/502/0842-04", "/us/502/0842-10" ] }, { "cite": "397 S.E.2d 653", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "657" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "100 N.C. App. 628", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527353 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "634" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/100/0628-01" ] }, { "cite": "367 S.E.2d 660", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "664" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "322 N.C. 288", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2516208 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "295" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/322/0288-01" ] }, { "cite": "539 S.E.2d 625", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "631" }, { "page": "630" }, { "page": "631" }, { "page": "632" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 200", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135935 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "208" }, { "page": "207" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0200-01" ] }, { "cite": "291 S.E.2d 618", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "619" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "306 N.C. 132", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567694 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "134" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/306/0132-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 L. Ed. 2d 992", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "531 U.S. 1165", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9784512, 9783616, 9783489, 9784931, 9785068, 9784364, 9784782, 9784238, 9785236, 9783863, 9783992, 9784122, 9784638 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/531/1165-08", "/us/531/1165-02", "/us/531/1165-01", "/us/531/1165-11", "/us/531/1165-12", "/us/531/1165-07", "/us/531/1165-10", "/us/531/1165-06", "/us/531/1165-13", "/us/531/1165-03", "/us/531/1165-04", "/us/531/1165-05", "/us/531/1165-09" ] }, { "cite": "532 S.E.2d 496", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "501", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "352 N.C. 489", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 685022 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "498", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/352/0489-01" ] }, { "cite": "543 S.E.2d 823", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "826", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Brewington, 352 N.C. 489, 498, 532 S.E.2d 496, 501 (2000) (citations omitted), cert. denied, Brewington v. North Carolina, 531 U.S. 1165, 148 L. Ed. 2d 992 (2001)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 332", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135584 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "336", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Brewington, 352 N.C. 489, 498, 532 S.E.2d 496, 501 (2000) (citations omitted), cert. denied, Brewington v. North Carolina, 531 U.S. 1165, 148 L. Ed. 2d 992 (2001)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0332-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 644, "char_count": 12581, "ocr_confidence": 0.761, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.7438545935611764e-07, "percentile": 0.8949044905706858 }, "sha256": "b4787c6b7294bcb8484adb847ae6083cf81b2b994ac38eee14c09285b2107408", "simhash": "1:ab67e62c636e2de0", "word_count": 2060 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:55.515420+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges BRYANT and GEER concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JERMAINE McARN" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "TIMMONS-GOODSON, Judge.\nJermaine McArn (\u201cdefendant\u201d) appeals the trial court\u2019s denial of his motion to suppress cocaine discovered following a stop of his vehicle. For the reasons discussed herein, we reverse the trial court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motion to suppress and remand the case for a new trial.\nThe facts pertinent to the instant appeal are as follows: On 4 August 2001, Officer Thomas Lee Hall (\u201cOfficer Hall\u201d) and Officer Smith of the Lumberton Police Department received a police radio communication dispatching the officers to investigate possible drug activity. An anonymous caller reported to the police department that a white Nissan vehicle on Franklin and Sessoms Street was involved in the sale of illegal drugs. Neither the record nor the trial court\u2019s findings of fact reveal any information about the tipster. Upon receiving the police communication, Officer Hall proceeded to the dispatched location and observed a white Nissan vehicle leaving the area. Officer Hall stopped the vehicle, which was operated by defendant and occupied by passengers, Marcus McKinna (\u201cMcKinna\u201d) and defendant\u2019s children. Officer Hall had no reason to suspect the vehicle\u2019s driver or occupants of illegal conduct apart from the anonymous tip.\nUpon approaching defendant\u2019s vehicle, Officer Hall ordered defendant to produce his driver\u2019s license and vehicle registration. Defendant informed Officer Hall that his driver\u2019s license was revoked. Defendant was ordered to exit his vehicle. Officer Hall patted down defendant for weapons, placed him in a patrol vehicle, issued him a citation, and asked for consent to search the vehicle. Defendant consented to a search of his vehicle; however, the search revealed no illegal substances or contraband. Subsequently, McKinna was placed under arrest based on outstanding warrants.\nPrior to Officer Hall searching the vehicle, defendant was removed from the patrol vehicle and ordered to stand at the rear of the patrol vehicle. As Officer Hall searched defendant\u2019s vehicle, Detective Harold Jackson (\u201cDetective Jackson\u201d) engaged in conversation with defendant. According to testimony from Detective Jackson, while talking to defendant he noticed that defendant appeared to have an object in his mouth. As a result, Detective Jackson asked defendant to \u201copen his mouth and let [him] look [inside];\u201d however, defendant did not respond to the request. Detective Jackson continued to talk with defendant and informed him that his children did not \u201cneed to see [him] going to jail for drugs,\u201d and that if he had drugs in his mouth he \u201cneeded to place them on the vehicle.\u201d On direct examination, defendant testified that Detective Jackson asked him if he had drugs in his mouth and that he did not respond. Defendant further testified that Detective Jackson continued to talk to him and stated \u201cdo not make us do this out here in front of the kids\u201d and again requested to look inside of defendant\u2019s mouth. Subsequently, defendant removed a packet of cocaine from his mouth and placed the drugs on the rear of Officer Hall\u2019s patrol vehicle. Defendant was arrested and indicted for possession of a controlled substance.\nAt the close of the evidence, defendant\u2019s motion to suppress was denied and he entered a guilty plea to possession of cocaine; however, defendant reserved the right to appeal, pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes \u00a7 15A-979(b), from an order denying a motion to suppress. Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of minimum five months\u2019 and a maximum of six months\u2019 imprisonment and twelve months of supervised probation. Defendant now appeals the trial court\u2019s denial of his motion to suppress.\nThe dispositive issue presented by this appeal is whether an anonymous tip received by police that a vehicle is involved in illegal drug sales is sufficient, without more, to justify an investigatory stop of the driver of the vehicle. For the reasons stated herein, we hold that it is not and reverse the judgment of the trial court.\n\u201c[T]he standard of review in evaluating a trial court\u2019s ruling on a motion to suppress is that the trial court\u2019s findings of fact \u2018are conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting.\u2019 \u201d State v. Buchanan, 353 N.C. 332, 336, 543 S.E.2d 823, 826 (2001) (quoting State v. Brewington, 352 N.C. 489, 498, 532 S.E.2d 496, 501 (2000) (citations omitted), cert. denied, Brewington v. North Carolina, 531 U.S. 1165, 148 L. Ed. 2d 992 (2001)). This Court must not disturb the trial court\u2019s conclusions if they are supported by the court\u2019s factual findings. State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 134, 291 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1982). However, the trial court\u2019s conclusions of law are fully reviewable on appeal. See State v. Hughes, 353 N.C. 200, 208, 539 S.E.2d 625, 631 (2000). At a suppression hearing, conflicts in the evidence are to be resolved by the trial court. See State v. Johnson, 322 N.C. 288, 295, 367 S.E.2d 660, 664 (1988). The trial court must make findings of fact resolving any material conflict in the evidence. See State v. Aubin, 100 N.C. App. 628, 634, 397 S.E.2d 653, 657 (1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 842, 116 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1991).\nHere, defendant challenges the following findings of fact by the trial court:\nThat on August 4th, 2000, Officer Hall of the Lumberton Police Department received information through the dispatch from an anonymous tip that there was a white Nissan, in the area of Franklin and Sessoms Streets, engaged in the sale of illegal narcotics or illegal drugs;\nThat the officer had been a police officer, at that time, for approximately 5 years and knew the area and knew that it had some reputation for being a crime area, although it was not the highest crime area of the city;\nThat, within 3 to 5 minutes of receiving this report, he proceeded to the area and saw a white Nissan [S] entra;\nThat he stopped the Nissan [S] entra primarily because of the information that the officer received from a citizen or informant via the communications from the anonymous call;\nThat, based on the officer\u2019s training, observation, experience, the area, and the details provided by the call and upon him finding a car that exactly matched the description of white Nissan [S] entra, he had reasonable suspicion to briefly stop the car;\nThe case before us involves the investigatory stop of defendant\u2019s automobile. We first note that before the police can conduct a brief investigatory stop of a vehicle and detain its occupants without a warrant, the officer must have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 911 (1968); See also State v. Watkins, 337 N.C. 437, 441, 446 S.E.2d 67, 70 (1994) (holding that a seizure of a person includes a brief investigatory detention such as those involved in the stopping of a vehicle); See State v. Bonds, 139 N.C. App. 627, 628, 533 S.E.2d 855, 856 (2000). \u201cUnlike a tip from a known informant whose reputation can be assessed and who can be held responsible if [the] allegations turn out to be fabricated, \u2018an anonymous tip alone seldom demonstrates the informant\u2019s basis of knowledge or veracity.\u2019 \u201d Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 270, 146 L. Ed. 2d 254, 260 (2000) (quoting Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 329, 110 L. Ed. 2d 301, 308 (1990)) (citations omitted). An anonymous tip may provide reasonable suspicion if it exhibits sufficient indicia of reliability and if it does not, then there must be sufficient police corroboration of the tip before the stop can be made. Hughes, 353 N.C. at 207, 539 S.E.2d at 630. When a tip is somewhat lacking in reliability it may still provide a basis for reasonable suspicion if it is buttressed by sufficient police corroboration. Id. \u201cThe reasonable suspicion must arise from the officer\u2019s knowledge prior to the time of the stop.\u201d Id. at 208, 539 S.E.2d at 631. An investigative stop \u201cmust be based on specific and articulable facts, as well as the rational inferences from those facts, as viewed through the eyes of a reasonable, cautious officer, guided by his experience and training.\u201d State v. Kincaid, 147 N.C. App. 94, 98, 555 S.E.2d 294, 298 (2001). The police officer must have something more than an \u201cunparticularized suspicion or hunch before\u201d stopping a vehicle. Id. In determining whether reasonable suspicion exists, a court must consider the totality of the circumstances. Watkins, 337 N.C. at 441, 446 S.E.2d at 70.\nIn the present case, Officer Hall testified that based on an anonymous tip he was dispatched to a specific location to \u201cinvestigate possible drug activity . . . involving a white Nissan car.\u201d Officer Hall testified that the area was residential and did not have a reputation for crime, although there had been prior complaints of drug activity in the area. Upon arriving at the scene, Officer Hall identified a white Nissan vehicle that would fit the description in the area as given by the anonymous tipster. He stopped the vehicle as it was leaving the area. Testimony from Officer Hall reveals that he stopped defendant based only on the description of the vehicle communicated by the dispatcher. Officer Hall had neither attempted nor made any independent observations or assessments regarding the operation of the Nissan vehicle, the activity of the occupants, or any illegal conduct.\nIn Hughes, our Supreme Court stated that:\n\u201c[a]n accurate description of a subject\u2019s readily observable location and appearance is of course reliable in this limited sense: It will help the police correctly identify the person whom the tipster means to accuse. Such a tip, however, does not show that the tipster has knowledge of concealed criminal activity. The reasonable suspicion here at issue requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person.\u201d\nId. at 209, 539 S.E.2d at 632 (quoting Florida, 529 U.S. 266, 272, 146 L. Ed. 2d at 261).\nHere, the fact that the anonymous tipster provided the location and description of the vehicle may have offered some limited indicia of reliability in that it assisted the police in identifying the vehicle the tipster referenced. It has not gone unnoticed by this Court, however, that the tipster never identified or in any way described an individual. Therefore, the tip upon which Officer Hall relied did not possess the indicia of reliability necessary to provide reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop. The anonymous tipster in no way predicted defendant\u2019s actions. The police were thus unable to test the tipster\u2019s knowledge or credibility. Moreover, the tipster failed to explain on what basis he knew about the white Nissan vehicle and related drug activity.\nOfficer Hall stopped defendant based solely on the anonymous tip and we hold that the tip, on its own, was not sufficiently reliable to create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Accordingly, we conclude that the conclusion of the trial court, that the tip created a sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify stopping defendant\u2019s vehicle, was error. Thus, we reverse the denial by the trial court of defendant\u2019s motion to suppress and remand the case for a new trial.\nReversed and remanded for a new trial.\nJudges BRYANT and GEER concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "TIMMONS-GOODSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Douglas A. Johnston, for the State.", "Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Janet Moore, for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JERMAINE McARN\nNo. COA02-918\n(Filed 15 July 2003)\nSearch and Seizure\u2014 investigatory stop of vehicle \u2014 anonymous tip \u2014 motion to suppress cocaine\nThe trial court erred in a possession of cocaine case by denying defendant\u2019s motion to suppress cocaine discovered following a stop of his vehicle based on an anonymous tip received by police that the vehicle was involved in illegal drug sales, because: (1) although the anonymous tipster\u2019s providing of the location and description of the vehicle may have offered some limited indicia of reliability in that it assisted the police in identifying the vehicle the tipster referenced, the tipster never identified or in any way described an individual; and (2) the officer stopped defendant based solely on the anonymous tip, and the tip upon which the officer relied did not possess the indicia of reliability necessary to provide reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 5 September 2001 by Judge James Floyd Ammons, Jr. in Robeson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 March 2003.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Douglas A. Johnston, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Janet Moore, for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0209-01", "first_page_order": 239, "last_page_order": 244 }