{
  "id": 11308760,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HAYWOOD EDWARDS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Edwards",
  "decision_date": "1974-08-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 748SC148",
  "first_page": "535",
  "last_page": "540",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "22 N.C. App. 535"
    }
  ],
  "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": "380 U.S. 102",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1524630
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1965,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "108"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/380/0102-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "403 U.S. 573",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        12027357
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/403/0573-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "393 U.S. 410",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11317375
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/393/0410-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 S.E. 2d 177",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 N.C. 198",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560734
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/284/0198-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 S.E. 2d 202",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "204"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 N.C. 771",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627281
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "773"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/243/0771-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 S.E. 2d 527",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 N.C. App. 413",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552960
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/20/0413-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 S.E. 2d 752",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "755"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 N.C. 125",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562900
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "129"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/282/0125-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "378 U.S. 108",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6165107
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/378/0108-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "393 U.S. 410",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11317375
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/393/0410-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 596,
    "char_count": 11245,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.598,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.207966869300525e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3286220547993339
    },
    "sha256": "a283d079c076d275c28ce713200f26f7ea5f6c4e800393e579ed207469c25d8b",
    "simhash": "1:be632c00e60fbbde",
    "word_count": 1856
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:41.671000+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judge Baley concurs.",
      "Judge Parker dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HAYWOOD EDWARDS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Chief Judge.\nOn defendant\u2019s objection to evidence obtained by the search, a voir dire examination was held, from which it appeared that the original search warrant was not in the file and had not been seen since the case was tried in the District Court. The judge found as a fact that it was lost and, for purposes of passing upon its validity, considered a photostatic copy, which the State\u2019s witness testified had been made by a deputy clerk of court. In this procedure, we find no error. \u201cWhere the search is made under conditions requiring the issuance of a search warrant, and it is attempted, over objection, to justify the search and seizure by the possession of a valid search warrant in the hands of the searchers, the State must produce the search warrant, or, if it has been lost, the State must prove such fact and then introduce evidence to show its contents and regularity on its face, unless the production of the warrant is waived by the accused.\u201d State v. McMilliam, 243 N.C. 771, 773, 92 S.E. 2d 202, 204. There could hardly be better evidence of the contents of the search warrant than a photostatic copy made from the original, and the court properly considered the photostatic copy in the present case.\nDefendant argues that the affidavit to obtain the search warrant is not sufficient to establish probable cause. The affidavit states that affiant, a deputy sheriff, has probable cause to believe that defendant had non tax-paid whiskey on his premises at Route 2, Grifton. The affidavit further states:\n\u201cThe property described above is located On the Premises and in a 1965 Chevrolet described as follows: A red frame farm house located 8/10 of a mile west of NC 11 on rural unpaved road 1714 and a 1965 Chevrolet station wagon Lie #EZM771. The facts which establish probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant are as follows: A confidential and reliable informant who has given reliable information says that there is non tax paid whiskey at above location at this time.\u201d\nThe affidavit describes the house and its precise location. It describes, with particularity, the make, style, year and license number of the vehicle. It further states that the contraband is at the described location at the time the affidavit was signed. It is obvious from the unequivocal information given by the informant that the accusation was not casual rumor, but was sufficiently substantial to justify a finding of probable cause by the magistrate.\nJustice Higgins answered the argument urging technical requirements of elaborate specificity for affidavits to secure search warrants in State v. Ellington, 284 N.C. 198, 200 S.E. 2d 177. He quoted from opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States as follows:\n\u201cIn Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 21 L.Ed. 2d 637, 89 S.Ct. 584, the Court said: \u2018In the absence of a statement detailing the manner in which the information was gathered, it is especially important that the tip describe the accused\u2019s criminal activity in sufficient detail that the magistrate may know that he is relying on something more substantial than a casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based merely on an individual\u2019s general reputation.\u2019\n\u201cThe latest pronouncement on the question before us comes from the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in U. S. v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 29 L.Ed. 2d 723, 91 S.Ct. 2075:\n\u2018In evaluating the showing of probable cause necessary to support a search warrant, against the Fourth Amendment\u2019s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, we would do well to heed the sound admonition of United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965) :\n\u201c[T]he Fourth Amendment\u2019s commands, like all constitutional requirements, are practical and not abstract. If the teaching of the Court\u2019s cases are to be followed and the constitutional policy served, affidavits for search warrants, such as the one involved here, must be tested and interpreted by magistrates and courts in a commonsense and realistic fashion. They are normally drafted by nonlawyers in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation. Technical requirements of elaborate specificity once exacted under common law pleadings have no proper place in this area. A grudging or negative attitude by reviewing courts toward warrants will tend to discourage police officers from submitting their evidence to a judicial officer before acting.\u201d 380 U.S., at 108.\u2019 \u201d\nNo error.\nJudge Baley concurs.\nJudge Parker dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Chief Judge."
      },
      {
        "text": "Judge Parker\ndissenting:\nI agree that the contents of the search warrant were properly proved by use of the photostatic, copy in this case, but I cannot find the warrant valid under Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 21 L.Ed. 2d 637, 89 S.Ct. 584 (1969) and Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 12 L.Ed. 2d 723, 84 S.Ct. 1509 (1964). Until those decisions are modified or overruled by the United States Supreme Court they are binding on this Court, and I am unable to join in simply ignoring their teachings.. Our own Supreme Court in State v. Campbell, 282 N.C. 125, 129, 191 S.E. 2d 752, 755 (1972) has succinctly summarized these as follows:\n\u201cThe affidavit [indicating the basis for the finding of probable cause by the issuing magistrate] may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant; but the affidavit in such case must contain some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant\u2019s informer concluded that the articles sought were where the informer claimed they were, and some of the underlying circmnstances from which the affiant concluded that the informer, whose identity need not be disclosed, was credible and his information reliable. [Citations omitted.]\n\u201cWhether the affidavit is sufficient to show probable cause must be determined by the issuing magistrate rather than the affiant. This is constitutionally required by the Fourth Amendment.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nThe affidavit of the deputy sheriff on which the warrant was issued in the case now before us stated that the affiant had probable cause to believe that defendant had on his premises and in his vehicle certain property, to wit, non-tax-paid whiskey. It described the premises and vehicle to be searched with sufficient particularity, and then contains the following:\n\u201cThe facts which establish probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant are as follows: A confidential and reliable informant who has given reliable information says that there is non tax paid whiskey at above location at this time.\u201d\nNo other facts were stated in the affidavit on which the warrant was issued and there is no suggestion in the record that any evidence other than that contained in the affidavit was furnished to the magistrate to support the finding of probable cause at the time the warrant was issued.\nWhen the affidavit is examined in light of the holdings in Aguilar and Spinelli, I find that even if it be considered minimally sufficient to allow the magistrate to determine that the confidential informant was credible (see State v. Brown, 20 N.C. App. 413, 201 S.E. 2d 527), a point as to which I have considerable question, nevertheless it is totally deficient in that it contains none \u201cof the underlying circumstances from which the affiant\u2019s informer concluded that the articles sought were where the informer claimed they were.\u201d State v. Campbell, supra. The majority opinion appears to lay stress upon the particularity with which the house and vehicle to be searched are described in the affidavit, but a search warrant to be constitutionally valid under the Fourth Amendment must in any event particularly describe the place to be searched, and one may easily be able to give an exact description of the exterior of a house or automobile without having the slightest information as to what is inside. The majority opinion also emphasizes that the affidavit \u201cstates that the contraband is at the described location at the time the affidavit was signed,\u201d and draws the conclusion that \u201c[i]t is obvious from the unequivocal information given by the informant that the accusation was not casual rumor.\u201d The conclusion drawn may be obvious to the majority. It is not to me. Quite incidentally, the unequivocal information which the majority here finds \u201csufficiently substantial to justify a finding of probable cause by the magistrate\u201d turned out to be false. No non-tax-paid whiskey, the only contraband mentioned in the affidavit, was found.\nIf the majority opinion is correct in finding the search warrant in this case constitutionally valid to authorize a search for non-tax-paid whiskey, then the question is presented whether seizure of tax-paid whiskey not mentioned in the warrant and not inherently contraband was also authorized by the warrant. The problem presented is not without difficulty. See: 68 Am. Jur. 2d, Searches and Seizures, \u00a7 112, p. 768, 769. The majority opinion solves the problem by ignoring it.\nI find error in the trial court\u2019s holding the search warrant valid and in admitting evidence of the tax-paid whiskey obtained by the search, for which I vote to award defendant a new trial.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "Judge Parker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan, by Associate Attorney William A. Raney, Jr., for the State.",
      "Turner & Harrison, by Fred W. Harrison, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HAYWOOD EDWARDS\nNo. 748SC148\n(Filed 7 August 1974)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 84; Searches and Seizures \u00a7 3\u2014 search warrant lost \u2014 proof of contents by photostatic copy\nWhere the original search warrant was shown to be lost, the trial court properly allowed the State to prove the contents of the warrant by a photostatic copy of the original which had been made by a deputy clerk of superior court.\n2. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 3\u2014 sufficiency of affidavit for warrant\nAn affidavit describing with particularity the house and vehicle allegedly containing nontaxpaid whiskey and stating that \u201cA confidential and reliable informant who has given reliable information says that there is nontaxpaid whiskey at above location at this time\u201d was sufficient to establish probable cause for issuance of a warrant to search for nontaxpaid whiskey.\nJudge Parker dissenting.\nAppeal by defendant from Rouse, Judge, 27 August 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Lenoir County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 April 1974.\nDefendant was charged in a warrant with unlawful possession of ten pints of tax-paid liquor for the purpose of sale. After trial and conviction in the District Court, he appealed to the Superior Court for trial de novo and again pled not guilty. The State\u2019s evidence showed: Deputy sheriffs, armed with a warrant to search defendant\u2019s house and Chevrolet station wagon, executed the search and found four pints of gin and six pints of whiskey in the station wagon. Defendant testified that he owned eight pints of the liquor, which were found on the floorboard in the passenger compartment of the station wagon; but he denied any knowledge of two pints, which the officers testified they found in the spare tire section of the station wagon. Defendant denied possessing any of the liquor for the purpose of sale.\nThe jury found defendant guilty as charged; and from judgment imposed on the verdict, he appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan, by Associate Attorney William A. Raney, Jr., for the State.\nTurner & Harrison, by Fred W. Harrison, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0535-01",
  "first_page_order": 567,
  "last_page_order": 572
}
