{
  "id": 8551250,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES KENNETH BRANDON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Brandon",
  "decision_date": "1973-06-13",
  "docket_number": "No. 7323SC479",
  "first_page": "483",
  "last_page": "485",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "18 N.C. App. 483"
    }
  ],
  "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": "154 S.E. 2d 340",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 N.C. 306",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567659
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/270/0306-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 243,
    "char_count": 3380,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.496,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7530697735659492
    },
    "sha256": "ab6dfea6c111a4de488c70296c6abbca0db7d77e6ee56cd9c83f0ec2c57b1245",
    "simhash": "1:8b04a8bc8e99297e",
    "word_count": 557
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:14:36.293491+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Morris concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES KENNETH BRANDON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nDefendant assigns error to denial of his motion to suppress the State\u2019s evidence made on the grounds it was obtained as result of an unlawful search. At the hearing on the motion the State presented testimony to show that the jailer got defendant\u2019s coat from his locked car only after defendant had requested him to do so and had given him the car keys for that purpose. Thus no unlawful search of the car was involved. Before giving defendant his coat, the jaiier took the sensible precaution of examining its pockets. This, in our opinion, he had every right to do, else he ran the obvious risk of unknowingly delivering to his prisoner some weapon which might be employed against him or some instrument which might be used to effect an escape. The Fourth Amendment does not forbid all searches and seizures but only those that are unreasonable. Under the circumstances here disclosed, no unreasonable search has been shown and the trial judge correctly so held.\nDefendant\u2019s motion for nonsuit was also properly denied. When the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State, it was a legitimate inference for the jury to draw that defendant had had actual possession of the amphetamine capsules found in the pocket of his coat taken from his locked car. State v. Chavis, 270 N.C. 306, 154 S.E. 2d 340, relied on by appellant, is factually distinguishable.\nNo error.\nJudges Campbell and Morris concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney General Ralf F. Haskell and Wade E. Brown, Consultant, for the State.",
      "James Lee Graham for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES KENNETH BRANDON\nNo. 7323SC479\n(Filed 13 June 1973)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 84; Searches and Seizures \u00a7 2\u2014 search with defendant\u2019s consent \u2014 admissibility of amphetamine capsules\nWhere defendant who was in prison on another charge asked the jailer to bring him his coat from his locked car, the jailer fetched the coat and examined the pockets before giving it to defendant and the examination yielded five capsules containing amphetamine, there was no unlawful search, and evidence obtained from the search was admissible in this prosecution for the unlawful possession of amphetamine.\n2. Narcotics \u00a7 4\u2014 possession of amphetamine \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nEvidence was sufficient to withstand defendant\u2019s motion for nonsuit in a prosecution for the unlawful prossession of amphetamine where it tended to show that defendant had had actual possession of the amphetamine capsules found in the pocket of his coat taken from his locked car.\nAppeal by defendant from Winner, Judge, January 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Yadkin County.\nDefendant pled not guilty to the charge of unlawful possession of amphetamine. The State\u2019s evidence showed: While defendant was in the Yadkin County jail as result of another charge, he asked the jailer to bring him his coat from his car, stating he wanted to use it for a pillow. The jailer got the keys, unlocked defendant\u2019s car which was parked on the jail property, and got defendant\u2019s coat from the front seat. Before giving the coat to defendant, the jailer searched the pockets and found five capsules, which, on being tested by an SBI chemist, were found to contain amphetamine.\nDefendant offered no evidence. He was found guilty as charged. From judgment 'imposing a suspended sentence, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney General Ralf F. Haskell and Wade E. Brown, Consultant, for the State.\nJames Lee Graham for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0483-01",
  "first_page_order": 507,
  "last_page_order": 509
}