{
  "id": 8377534,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WESLEY TATE PICKARD, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Pickard",
  "decision_date": "2006-07-05",
  "docket_number": "No. COA05-1414",
  "first_page": "330",
  "last_page": "336",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "178 N.C. App. 330"
    }
  ],
  "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": "613 S.E.2d 35",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12632972
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "38"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/613/0035-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "662 A.2d 937",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "probable cause not stale where the defendant's most recent criminal activity and contact with the victims occurred six years prior to issuance of the warrant where the search warrant sought pornographic movies and nude photographs of the minor victims"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 N.H. 647",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.H.",
      "case_ids": [
        2292793
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "probable cause not stale where the defendant's most recent criminal activity and contact with the victims occurred six years prior to issuance of the warrant where the search warrant sought pornographic movies and nude photographs of the minor victims"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nh/139/0647-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "487 N.W.2d 698",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "705",
          "parenthetical": "\"[P]hotographs guarantee that there will always be an image of the child at the age of sexual preference because the photograph preserves the child's youth forever.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "439 Mich. 584",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mich.",
      "case_ids": [
        2017508
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "601",
          "parenthetical": "\"[P]hotographs guarantee that there will always be an image of the child at the age of sexual preference because the photograph preserves the child's youth forever.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mich/439/0584-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "429 S.E.2d 783",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "786"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 N.C. App. 413",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525713
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "419"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/110/0413-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "261 S.E.2d 860",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "865"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "865"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "299 N.C. 298",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574388
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "305"
        },
        {
          "page": "305"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/299/0298-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 S.E.2d 247",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "249"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "311 N.C. 739",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4681076
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "742"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/311/0739-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "397 S.E.2d 355",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "358"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "internal citations omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "358"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 N.C. App. 574",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527228
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "577"
        },
        {
          "page": "577"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/100/0574-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "322 S.E.2d 140",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "146"
        }
      ],
      "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": "610 S.E.2d 362",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "365",
          "parenthetical": "citations and internal quotation marks omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "359 N.C. 394",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3798120
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "399",
          "parenthetical": "citations and internal quotation marks omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/359/0394-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "381 S.E.2d 327",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "329"
        },
        {
          "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"
        },
        {
          "page": "221"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/325/0217-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 S.E.2d 254",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "259"
        },
        {
          "page": "256",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "258"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "311 N.C. 633",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4681578
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "641"
        },
        {
          "page": "636"
        },
        {
          "page": "638"
        },
        {
          "page": "638"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/311/0633-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "462 U.S. 213",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6187462
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "238"
        },
        {
          "page": "548"
        },
        {
          "page": "238-39"
        },
        {
          "page": "548",
          "parenthetical": "concluding that \"the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a 'substantial basis' \" to conclude that probable cause existed (citation omitted)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/462/0213-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "484 S.E.2d 350",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "357"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "346 N.C. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        139403
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "11"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/346/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "525 S.E.2d 481",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "484"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 N.C. App. 587",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11241064
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "591-92"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/136/0587-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 N.C. App. 790",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8473814
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "794"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/169/0790-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "506 S.E.2d 754",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "758"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 N.C. App. 231",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11198623
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "235"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/131/0231-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "557 S.E.2d 191",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "193-94"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 N.C. App. 135",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9364175
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "138"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/148/0135-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "584 S.E.2d 830",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "835",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 N.C. App. 107",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8954514
      ],
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "114",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/160/0107-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 866,
    "char_count": 17034,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.751,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.56235791092329e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8154544917483606
    },
    "sha256": "fc80640f822508bb9de0d231a997665ef8de4d7aa51fafc17f708c05b27ba901",
    "simhash": "1:820061186ecf2c56",
    "word_count": 2701
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:18:34.747306+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges GEER and STEPHENS concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WESLEY TATE PICKARD, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WYNN, Judge.\nUnder North Carolina law, warrants must be based on probable cause which in turn must be supported by an affidavit \u201cparticularly setting forth the facts and circumstances establishing probable cause to believe that the items are in the places or in the possession of the individuals to be searched^]\u201d In this case, Defendant argues that the affidavit supporting the warrant to search his house was invalid because it contained stale information. As events alleged in the affidavit show on-going criminal activity by Defendant, and the items to be seized were of continued utility to Defendant, we hold that a reasonably prudent magistrate could determine that probable cause existed to support the warrant to search Defendant\u2019s home.\nOn 1 September 2004, Sergeant Detective Pete Acosta applied for and received a search warrant to search Defendant\u2019s residence, along with any outbuildings on the curtilage and any vehicle. The warrant authorized seizure of, inter alia, any computers, computer equipment and accessories, any cassette videos or DVDs, video cameras, digital cameras, film cameras and accessories, and photographs or printed materials which could be consistent with the exploitation of a minor.\nThis warrant, executed on 1 September 2004, was supported by an affidavit tending to show the following facts: On 31 August 2004, Crystal Sharpe, a detective with the Graham Police Department, received a telephone call from a stepmother regarding inappropriate touching of her seven-year-old stepson by Defendant Wesley Tate Pickard. The seven-year-old child disclosed to Detective Sharpe that Defendant had rubbed his penis on top of his underwear on approximately six or seven occasions. He stated that Defendant would place him on the bed and lay him on his back and rub his genital area. Defendant instructed the seven-year-old child not to tell anyone. The seven-year-old child also told Detective Sharpe that Defendant had done the same thing to his friend, a six-year-old male, approximately four times. After the interview, the seven-year-old child\u2019s parents expressed concern about inappropriate digital photographs that Defendant had taken of some of their children.\nThe six-year-old male told Detective Sharpe that he had been in Defendant\u2019s home on several occasions and that Defendant had touched him. The six-year-old ufcale remembered that Defendant would lie in bed with him and other children, all in their underwear, and watch television.\nThe three-year-old sister of the six-year-old male told Detective Sharpe that Defendant had taken pictures of her \u201cin a costume that he had at his house.\u201d She also told the detective that Defendant took lots of pictures and videos and kept them under his bed \u201cso no one can see them.\u201d\nA fifteen-year-old female told Detective Sharpe that Defendant had penetrated her vagina with his finger and penis on several occasions. Defendant videotaped her in the shower without her knowledge, took photographs of her naked while she was sleeping, and sent them to people over the internet. The fifteen-year-old female knew Defendant used the Yahoo screen name \u201cWild Wild Wes.\u201d She described Defendant\u2019s penis as uncircumcised and told Detective Sharpe that these incidents took place two years prior when she was fourte\u00e9n years old. She stated that Defendant had videos, photographs, and internet pictures of naked children in his bedroom, living room, and an outbuilding. He also had cameras on the three or four computers in the bedroom and living room. The fifteen-year-old female described Defendant\u2019s house in detail and also told Detective Sharpe about Defendant\u2019s firearms he kept in his house and vehicle. The fifteen-year-old female stopped going to Defendant\u2019s home in January 2003.\nDetective Sharpe also interviewed an eight-year-old male who disclosed that Defendant had touched him with his hand by rubbing him between his belly button and his private area. Defendant made him pose for pictures on his bed. The eight-year-old male said that Defendant\u2019s camera was on a stand and when he took pictures they would appear on the computer screen.\nThe affidavit also contained information that Defendant had been investigated in August 2002 for inappropriate touching, and in 1992 he was charged with two counts of indecent liberties with a minor and carrying a concealed weapon.\nOn 8 September 2004, Sergeant Detective Acosta applied for and received another search warrant \u2014 this one to search the computers, CDs, and floppy disks seized during the search of Defendant\u2019s home. The affidavit of probable cause to support the search warrant indicated that upon searching Defendant\u2019s home, Sergeant Detective Acosta found computer and video equipment in the master bedroom. Sergeant Detective Acosta reviewed one of the 8mm videotapes seized from Defendant\u2019s residence and observed Defendant moving the \u201cweb camera\u201d around the body of a female child, approximately two to three years old. Another video showed Defendant using a computer in his bedroom while several children were being videotaped engaging in sexual activity on his bed.\nOn 14 September 2004, Sergeant Detective Acosta applied for and received a third search warrant \u2014 this one to search Defendant\u2019s home, outbuildings, and vehicles in order to search for, inter alia, \u201c[a]ny substance or item which could be used to intentionally intoxicate or sedate a juvenile victim for the purpose of extensively sexually assaulting them.\u201d The affidavit to establish probable cause included facts from the first warrant, along with the following additional facts: On 10 September 2004, Sergeant Detective Acosta met with Dr. Dana Hagele with the Center for Child & Family Health. Dr. Hagele reviewed segments from videotapes seized from Defendant\u2019s residence in which Defendant forced his penis in the vagina of two female victims, ages two to three years old, while they appeared to be asleep. The video also showed Defendant inserting his finger into the anus of \u00e1n approximately two-year-old female victim who appeared to be asleep. Dr. Hagele opined that \u201cthroughout the expensive, invasive, potentially painful assault depicted in the videos, neither girl was fully conscious, nor did the[y] demonstrate purposeful movement, vocalization, reflexive movement, or speech, and this was in her opinion consistent with [] intentional intoxication (\u201cdrugging\u201d).\u201d\nDefendant moved to suppress all evidence seized as a result of the three search warrants. After a hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial court denied Defendant\u2019s motion. Reserving his right to appeal the trial court\u2019s denial of his motion to suppress, Defendant pled guilty to ten counts of statutory sexual offense, two counts of attempted first-degree statutory sexual offense, thirty-eight counts of taking indecent liberties with a child, two counts of first-degree statutory rape, one count of attempted first-degree rape, and thirty-seven counts of first-degree sexual exploitation of a minor. One count of indecent liberties with a child and one count of first-degree sexual exploitation of a minor were dismissed. Defendant was sentenced to six consecutive terms of 288 to 355 months imprisonment.\nOn appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the 1 September 2004 search warrant because the information supporting probable cause was stale. We disagree.\n\u201cThe 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. Smith, 160 N.C. App. 107, 114, 584 S.E.2d 830, 835 (2003) (citation omitted). If the trial court\u2019s conclusions of law are supported by its factual findings, we will not disturb those conclusions on appeal. State v. Logner, 148 N.C. App. 135, 138, 557 S.E.2d 191, 193-94 (2001). Where an appellant fails to assign error to the trial court\u2019s findings of fact, the findings are \u201cpresumed to be correct.\u201d Inspirational Network, Inc. v. Combs, 131 N.C. App. 231, 235, 506 S.E.2d 754, 758 (1998). As Defendant failed to assign error to any findings of fact, our review is limited to the question of whether the trial court\u2019s findings of fact, which are presumed to be supported by competent evidence, support its conclusions of law and judgment. State v. Downing, 169 N.C. App. 790, 794, 613 S.E.2d 35, 38 (2005); Okwara v. Dillard Dep\u2019t Stores, Inc., 136 N.C. App. 587, 591-92, 525 S.E.2d 481, 484 (2000). However, the trial court\u2019s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo and must be legally correct. State v. Fernandez, 346 N.C. 1, 11, 484 S.E.2d 350, 357 (1997).\nThe Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no warrants shall be issued except upon probable cause. U.S. Const, amend. IV, Moreover, section 15A-244(3) of the North Carolina General Statutes requires that statements of probable cause must be supported by an affidavit \u201cparticularly setting forth the facts and circumstances establishing probable cause to believe that the items are in the places or in the possession of the individuals to be searched[.]\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-244(3) (2005).\nWhen addressing whether a search warrant is supported by probable cause, a reviewing court must consider the \u201ctotality of the circumstances.\u201d Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527, 548 (1983); State v. Arrington, 311 N.C. 633, 641, 319 S.E.2d 254, 259 (1984). In applying the totality of the circumstances test, our Supreme Court has stated that an affidavit is sufficient if it establishes \u201creasonable cause to believe that the proposed search . . . 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. Probable cause does not mean actual and positive cause nor import absolute certainty.\u201d Arrington, 311 N.C. at 636, 319 S.E.2d at 256 (citations omitted). Thus, under the totality of the circumstances test, a reviewing court must determine \u201cwhether the evidence as a whole provides a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause exists.\u201d State v. Beam, 325 N.C. 217, 221, 381 S.E.2d 327, 329 (1989); see also Gates, 462 U.S. at 238-39, 76 L. Ed. 2d at 548 (concluding that \u201cthe duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a \u2018substantial basis\u2019 \u201d to conclude that probable cause existed (citation omitted)). In adhering to this standard of review, we are cognizant that \u201cgreat deference should be paid [to] a magistrate\u2019s determination of probable cause and that after-the-fact scrutiny should not take the form of a de novo review.\u201d Arrington, 311 N.C. at 638, 319 S.E.2d at 258.\n\u201c[I]t is well settled that whether probable cause has been established is based on factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent [persons], not legal technicians, act.\u201d State v. Sinapi, 359 N.C. 394, 399, 610 S.E.2d 362, 365 (2005) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). \u201cProbable cause is a flexible, common-sense standard. It does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false. A practical, nontechnical probability is all that is required.\u201d State v. Zuniga, 312 N.C. 251, 262, 322 S.E.2d 140, 146 (1984).\nDefendant argues that the information contained in the affidavit for probable cause was stale because the information provided by the fifteen-year-old female was eighteen to nineteen months old and other depictions of sexual conduct with minors did not have specific time references. When evidence of previous criminal activity is advanced to support a finding of probable cause, a further examination must be made to determine if the evidence of the prior activity is stale. State v. McCoy, 100 N.C. App. 574, 577, 397 S.E.2d 355, 358 (1990). \u201c[W]here the affidavit properly recites facts indicating activity of a protracted and continuous nature, a course of conduct, the passage of time becomes less significant. The continuity of the offense may be the most important factor in determining whether the probable cause is valid or stale.\u201d Id. (internal citations omitted).\nNorth Carolina courts have repeatedly held that \u201cyoung children cannot be expected to be exact regarding times and dates[.]\u201d State v. Wood, 311 N.C. 739, 742, 319 S.E.2d 247, 249 (1984). Thus, although the fifteen-year-old and the other minors did not provide specific dates, their allegations of inappropriate sexual touching by Defendant allowed the magistrate to reasonably infer that Defendant\u2019s criminal activity was protracted and continuing in nature. See McCoy, 100 N.C. App. at 577, 397 S.E.2d at 358.\nFurthermore, common sense is the ultimate criterion in determining the degree of evaporation of probable cause. State v. Jones, 299 N.C. 298, 305, 261 S.E.2d 860, 865 (1980). \u201cThe significance of the length of time between the point probable cause arose and when the warrant issued depends largely upon the property\u2019s nature, and should be contemplated in view of the practical consideration of everyday life.\u201d Id. (citation omitted). Other variables to consider when determining staleness are the items to be seized and the character of the crime. State v. Witherspoon, 110 N.C. App. 413, 419, 429 S.E.2d 783, 786 (1993).\nThe items sought by the search warrant \u2014 computers, computer equipment and accessories, cassette videos or DVDs, video cameras, digital cameras, film cameras and accessories \u2014 were not particularly incriminating in themselves and were of enduring utility to Defendant. See Jones, 299 N.C. at 305, 261 S.E.2d at 865 (five months elapsed between the time the witness saw the defendant\u2019s hatchet and gloves and when he told police; however, since the items were not incriminating in themselves and had utility to the defendant a reasonably prudent magistrate could have concluded that the items were still in the defendant\u2019s home). The warrant also sought photographs or printed materials which could be consistent with the exploitation of a minor. Photographs are made for the purpose of preserving an image and to be kept. See People v. Russo, 439 Mich. 584, 601, 487 N.W.2d 698, 705 (1992) (\u201c[P]hotographs guarantee that there will always be an image of the child at the age of sexual preference because the photograph preserves the child\u2019s youth forever.\u201d). There would be no reason to conclude that Defendant would have felt a necessity to dispose of such items. Indeed, a practical assessment of this information would lead a reasonably prudent magistrate to conclude that the computers, cameras, accessories, and photographs were probably located in Defendant\u2019s home. See, e.g, State v. Kirsch, 139 N.H. 647, 662 A.2d 937 (1995) (probable cause not stale where the defendant\u2019s most recent criminal activity and contact with the victims occurred six years prior to issuance of the warrant where the search warrant sought pornographic movies and nude photographs of the minor victims).\nIn sum, we conclude that the evidence as a whole provided the magistrate a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed at the time the search warrant was issued. See Beam, 325 N.C. at 221, 381 S.E.2d at 329; see also Arrington, 311 N.C. at 638, 319 S.E.2d at 258 (great deference paid to a magistrate\u2019s determination of probable cause). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court\u2019s denial of Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress evidence obtained under the 1 September 2004 search warrant.\nAffirmed.\nJudges GEER and STEPHENS concur.\n. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-244(3) (2005).\n. Defendant assigns error to the denial of his motion to suppress with respect to evidence seized pursuant to all three search warrants; however, on appeal he only argues error with regard to the 1 September 2004 warrant. Therefore, his assignments of error relating to the 8 and 14 September 2004 search warrants are deemed abandoned. N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WYNN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Anne M. Middleton, for the State.",
      "Anne Bleymanfor defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WESLEY TATE PICKARD, Defendant\nNo. COA05-1414\n(Filed 5 July 2006)\nSearch and Seizure\u2014 warrant \u2014 information not stale \u2014 items still useful to defendant \u2014 dates of sexual offenses against children\nAn affidavit is sufficient to support a search warrant if it establishes reasonable cause to believe that the proposed search will probably 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. The affidavit here, supporting the warrant to search the house of a man eventually convicted of multiple sexual offenses against children, was not invalid as containing stale information.\nAppeal by Defendant from judgments entered 27 April 2005 by Judge A. Leon Stanback in Superior Court, Alamance County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 June 2006.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Anne M. Middleton, for the State.\nAnne Bleymanfor defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0330-01",
  "first_page_order": 362,
  "last_page_order": 368
}
