{ "id": 4115223, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ANDREW JACKSON OATES", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Oates", "decision_date": "2012-12-31", "docket_number": "No. COA10-725-2", "first_page": "634", "last_page": "648", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "224 N.C. App. 634" } ], "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": "670 S.E.2d 635", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12642408 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "640" }, { "page": "638", "parenthetical": "citations and quotation marks omitted" }, { "page": "638" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/670/0635-01" ] }, { "cite": "637 S.E.2d 868", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12637331 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "871-72" }, { "page": "875", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted" }, { "page": "875" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/637/0868-01" ] }, { "cite": "594 S.E.2d 199", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12631245, 12631246 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/594/0199-02", "/se2d/594/0199-01" ] }, { "cite": "358 N.C. 240", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 12631246, 12631314, 12631219, 12631317, 12631319 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/594/0199-01", "/se2d/596/0016-03", "/se2d/594/0032-01", "/se2d/596/0017-01", "/se2d/596/0019-01" ] }, { "cite": "461 F.2d 285", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1329886 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "287" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/461/0285-01" ] }, { "cite": "309 S.E.2d 488", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "493" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "65 N.C. App. 302", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523552 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "308" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/65/0302-01" ] }, { "cite": "152 L.Ed. 2d 231", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "535 U.S. 940", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 351911, 353703, 353383, 351755, 354797, 353869, 354381, 354546, 354291, 352566, 353431, 354873, 351866, 352734 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/535/0940-01", "/us/535/0940-09", "/us/535/0940-12", "/us/535/0940-13", "/us/535/0940-04", "/us/535/0940-11", "/us/535/0940-05", "/us/535/0940-02", "/us/535/0940-14", "/us/535/0940-06", "/us/535/0940-07", "/us/535/0940-03", "/us/535/0940-10", "/us/535/0940-08" ] }, { "cite": "550 S.E.2d 482", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "488", "parenthetical": "as police were able to independently corroborate \"almost all of the information in the anonymous tip\" with the particular facts about the crime uncovered during the investigation, this corroboration was an indication of reliability, and gave credibility to the anonymous tipster." }, { "page": "488", "parenthetical": "holding that the anonymous tip independently corroborated by police established probable cause for the warrantless arrest of defendant." } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "354 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 138343 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "10-11" }, { "page": "11" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/354/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "681 S.E.2d 460", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "464" }, { "page": "464-65", "parenthetical": "the informant's tip combined with the independent corroboration of that information during the subsequent police investigation provided sufficient \"probable cause to arrest defendant\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "199 N.C. App. 253", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4169950 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "258-59" }, { "page": "259-60" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/199/0253-01" ] }, { "cite": "540 S.E.2d 372", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "351 N.C. 112", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1155881, 1155595, 1155663, 1155957, 1155799 ], "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/351/0112-05", "/nc/351/0112-03", "/nc/351/0112-04", "/nc/351/0112-01", "/nc/351/0112-02" ] }, { "cite": "516 S.E.2d 883", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "886" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "134 N.C. App. 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11143287 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "134" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/134/0130-01" ] }, { "cite": "703 S.E.2d 905", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2011, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "910", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "910" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "683 S.E.2d 208", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2009, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "363 N.C. 620", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4150812 ], "year": 2009, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/363/0620-01" ] }, { "cite": "194 N.C. App. 623", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4163006 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "630" }, { "page": "627" }, { "page": "627" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/194/0623-01" ] }, { "cite": "397 S.E.2d 355", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 6, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "357", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "357", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "357" }, { "page": "357" }, { "page": "357" }, { "page": "358" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "100 N.C. App. 574", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527228 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "576", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "576" }, { "page": "576-77" }, { "page": "576" }, { "page": "577" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/100/0574-01" ] }, { "cite": "692 S.E.2d 876", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2010, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "363 N.C. 811", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "year": 2010, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "685 S.E.2d 555", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "560-61", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "561" }, { "page": "561" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 N.C. App. 93", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4173356 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "100-01", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" }, { "page": "101" }, { "page": "101" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/201/0093-01" ] }, { "cite": "462 U.S. 213", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6187462 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "238-39" }, { "page": "548" }, { "page": "233" }, { "page": "545" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/462/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "319 S.E.2d 254", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "257-58", "parenthetical": "quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39, 76 L.Ed. 2d 527, 548 (1983)" }, { "page": "257-58" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 N.C. 633", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4681578 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "638", "parenthetical": "quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39, 76 L.Ed. 2d 527, 548 (1983)" }, { "page": "638" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/311/0633-01" ] }, { "cite": "361 N.C. 53", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3743190 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "57" }, { "page": "62" }, { "page": "62" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/361/0053-01" ] }, { "cite": "194 S.E.2d 353", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "356" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 N.C. 633", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568083 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "638" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/282/0633-01" ] }, { "cite": "179 S.E.2d 138", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "141", "parenthetical": "defining a \"conclusion of law\" as \"the court's statement of the law applicable to a case in view of certain facts found to be true or assumed by the jury to be true: the final judgment or decree which the law requires in view of the facts found or the verdict brought in.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "10 N.C. App. 402", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8554114 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "408" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/10/0402-01" ] }, { "cite": "704 S.E.2d 275", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2010, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "364 N.C. 600", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "year": 2010, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "691 S.E.2d 108", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "116" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "203 N.C. App. 151", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4175468 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "158" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/203/0151-01" ] }, { "cite": "592 S.E.2d 733", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "735-36" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "163 N.C. App. 129", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8915624 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "132" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/163/0129-01" ] }, { "cite": "698 S.E.2d 662", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2010, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "364 N.C. 244", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "year": 2010, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "687 S.E.2d 309", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "311" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 N.C. App. 607", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4173410 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "609" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/201/0607-01" ] }, { "cite": "732 S.E.2d 571", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2012, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "715 S.E.2d 616", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2011, "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1081, "char_count": 34736, "ocr_confidence": 0.747, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.728425166903017e-08, "percentile": 0.5304788039766025 }, "sha256": "256b92ba5bc2a6fde24bcaa097d49db15fd69823828b80c04648754f943b4f2f", "simhash": "1:cb5870e854eb2f66", "word_count": 5653 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:14:41.206072+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judge BRYANT concurs.", "Judge BEASLEY concurred prior to 17 December 2012." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ANDREW JACKSON OATES" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "STROUD, Judge.\nThis matter is before the Court on remand from the North Carolina Supreme Court. For the following reasons, we reverse the trial court\u2019s order granting defendant\u2019s motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings.\nI. Background\nOn 7 September 2007, Judge Paul Hardison of District Court, Sampson County authorized a search warrant of defendant\u2019s residence at 451 McKoy Street, Clinton, North Carolina. As a result of that search, defendant was found to be in possession of a firearm and, on 25 February 2008, he was indicted for one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On or about 19 November 2009, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence seized by police as a result of the 7 September 2007 search of defendant\u2019s residence. Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress came up for hearing at the 14 December 2009 Criminal Session of Superior Court, Sampson County. In open court, the trial court granted defendant\u2019s motion to suppress. The State filed written notice of appeal from the trial court\u2019s order on 30 December 2009. On 22 March 2010, the trial court entered a written order granting defendant\u2019s motion to suppress. On appeal, the State contends that the trial court erred in granting defendant\u2019s motion to suppress and \u201cconcluding that the affidavit supporting the issuance of the search warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause to search defendant\u2019s residence[.]\u201d\nThis Court dismissed the State\u2019s appeal as untimely by opinion filed 6 September 2011. State v. Oates, _ N.C. App. _, 715 S.E.2d 616 (2011). In its opinion filed 5 October 2012, the Supreme Court vacated this Court\u2019s decision, holding that the State timely filed their notice of appeal, and remanded for consideration of the other issues raised. State v. Oates, _ N.C. _, 732 S.E.2d 571 (2012). Accordingly, we will consider the substantive issues raised by the parties.\nII. Motion to Suppress\nIn our review of a trial court\u2019s ruling on a defendant\u2019s motion to suppress, the trial court\u2019s \u201cfindings of fact will be binding on appeal if supported by competent evidence. The trial court\u2019s findings of fact must support the conclusions of law, and the conclusions of law are reviewable de novo.\u201d State v. Hensley, 201 N.C. App. 607, 609, 687 S.E.2d 309, 311, (citations omitted), disc. rev. denied, 364 N.C. 244, 698 S.E.2d 662 (2010). If the State fails to challenge the trial court\u2019s findings of fact, \u201cthey are deemed to be supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal.\u201d State v. Roberson, 163 N.C. App. 129, 132, 592 S.E.2d 733, 735-36, disc. rev. denied, 358 N.C. 240, 594 S.E.2d 199 (2004).\nA. Findings of Fact\nThe State makes no challenge to the trial court\u2019s findings of fact #1-15 and #17; therefore they are binding on appeal. See id. The State does not argue that the findings are not supported by the evidence but only that \u201cfinding of fact #16 is incomplete and finding of fact #18 is actually a conclusion of law.\u201d As to finding of fact #16, it appears that the trial court summarized the information in the application for a search warrant:\n16. That the information set forth in the application for search warrant and affidavit to establish probable cause states that an \u201canonymous caller\u201d states, in summary, that Julio Keith is Andrew Oates\u2019 stepson, was coming to North Carolina to stay with his stepfather and had been observed somewhere wrapping guns, (emphasis in original)\nYet the State concedes that \u201cthe trial court was not required to make findings of fact[,]\u201d as \u201cthere was no material conflict in the evidence\u201d because \u201c[t]here was no testimony taken at the hearing on defendant\u2019s motion to suppress\u201d and the only facts before the trial court were from the application for the search warrant. See State v. Haymond, 203 N.C. App. 151, 158, 691 S.E.2d 108, 116 (even though the defendant contended that certain facts had been omitted from the trial court\u2019s findings because the detective \u201cintentionally omitted material facts from his application for the search warrant. . . [that] would have disclosed that no probable cause existed[,]\u201d this Court stated that \u201c[w]here there is no material conflict in the evidence, findings and conclusions are not necessary even though the better practice is to find facts [,]\u201d and therefore, \u201cwe must only consider whether the trial court\u2019s conclusions are supported by the evidence.\u201d), disc, review denied, 364 N.C. 600, 704 S.E.2d 275 (2010). Therefore, we need not further examine the trial court\u2019s finding #16.\nThe trial court\u2019s finding of fact #18 states:\n18. That there is nothing stated in the application for the search warrant or the affidavit to establish probable cause that there had been, or was going to be any criminal activity taking place at the residence to be searched, or that the Defendant Andrew Oates, or Julio Keith, possessed, or were going to possess, any drugs or weapons at the residence to be searched.\nAs finding of fact #18 makes a determination as to whether the warrant application was sufficient to show probable cause, we agree with the State that finding #18 is a conclusion of law. See Peoples v. Peoples, 10 N.C. App. 402, 408, 179 S.E.2d 138, 141 (1971) (defining a \u201cconclusion of law\u201d as \u201cthe court\u2019s statement of the law applicable to a case in view of certain facts found to be true or assumed by the jury to be true: the final judgment or decree which the law requires in view of the facts found or the verdict brought in.\u201d). Accordingly, we turn to the State\u2019s arguments challenging the trial court\u2019s conclusions of law.\nB. Conclusions of law\nIn addition to finding of fact #18, the State challenges all of the trial court\u2019s other conclusions of law made in its written order granting defendant\u2019s motion to suppress:\n[(1)] [N] either the application for the search warrant, nor the affidavit to support probable cause by S/A K. Eason provide probable cause for the issuance and execution of the search warrant.\n[(2)] [Tjhere is no nexus created in the application for the search warrant, nor in the affidavit to establish probable cause by S/A K. Eason, that anyone had seen any drugs or guns at the residence to be searched, nor that there were going to be drugs or guns at the residence to be searched and that the information received from both callers was anonymous and there is insufficient indicia as to their reliability nor is there sufficient corroborating information as to their reliability.\n[(3)] [N]o where in the application for the search warrant and affidavit to establish probable cause is stated a nexus for a probable cause for a search of the Defendant\u2019s residence at 451 McKoy Street, Clinton, NC 28328.\n[(4)] [T]he conduct of the officers in this case violated the Defendant\u2019s Fourth and Fourteenth amendment rights as secured to him by the United States Constitution as well as the rights secured to him by the North Carolina Constitution and that said conduct was in violation of N.C.G.S. Article 11, Chapter 15A.\nSpecifically, the State contends that the trial court\u2019s conclusions of law are erroneous because the affidavit did provide sufficient probable cause to permit the search of defendant\u2019s residence where \u201cthe informant\u2019s information was reliable, corroborated and there was a clear nexus between the items to be seized and the premises to be searched.\u201d Defendant contends that \u201c[t]he trial court correctly granted [defendant\u2019s] motion to suppress],]\u201d as \u201cthe affidavit and the rest of the application in support of the search warrant did not provide probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant.\u201d\nIn the application for the 7 September 2007 search warrant, Kellie Eason, Special Agent for the North Carolina Bureau of Invest\u00edgation, made the following averments as to probable cause to search defendant\u2019s residence:\nOn Thursday, September 6, 2007, Clinton Police Department Narcotics Detective D. Grady received a telephone call from a caller that wished to remain anonymous. The caller [stated that] Michelle Brown is the \u201ccommon law\u201d wife to Julio Keith, also known as \u201cPoppy\u201d. Both Michelle Brown and Julio Keith reside in New York.\n\u2014The caller stated Julio Keith was- on Federal Probation and was not to leave New York. The caller stated the reason Julio Keith was on Probation was due to drug charges. That caller said Julio Keith had drug charges in North Carolina.\n\u2014The caller stated he/she observed Julio Keith wrapping up guns in brown paper, bubble wrap and a long sheet of drawing paper. The caller observed four handguns. The caller described one gun being the size of a hand with a slide on top.\n\u2014The caller overheard a conversation which Julio Keith\u2019s wife asked \u201cyou\u2019re going down with a whole kilo?\u201d The caller stated he/she has observed Julio Keith with drugs in the past. The caller stated Julio Keith has secreted drugs in his anal cavity to avoid being caught by law enforcement.\n\u2014According to the caller, Julio Keith was driven to North Carolina by someone else. Julio Keith left New York on Friday, August 31, 2007 arriving in Clinton, North Carolina on Saturday, September 1, 2007 at night. Julio Keith made the statement he could make more money selling drugs in North Carolina. According to the caller, Julio Keith left New York because he thought he had sold drugs to an undercover officer. Julio Keith said he would return to New York in a week.\n\u2014The caller stated Julio Keith was staying with his parents, Jessica and Andrew Oates, located at 451 McKoy Street in Clinton, North Carolina. Detective Grady checked with City of Clinton Water and Sewer Department and determined an Andrew Oates is listed as the customer at 451 McKoy Street, Clinton, North Carolina.\n\u2014The caller stated Andrew Oates is Julio Keith\u2019s stepfather. According to the caller, Andrew Oates had killed someone.\n\u2014The caller described Julio Keith as a light skin, half Puerto Rican half black male with numerous tattoos, one of which said \u201cNY\u201d.\n\u2014This Affiant contacted Officer Jim Long of US Probation and Parole Greensboro, North Carolina office on Thursday, September 6, 2007. Officer Long stated he last met with Julio Keith on September 20, 2004. Julio Keith requested a transfer of his probation to the Southern District of New York. Julio Keith\u2019s transfer to New York was effective October 20, 2004.\n\u2014This Affiant obtained a North Carolina DMV photograph of Julio Keith. Detective Grady identified Julio Keith as the individual he observed on the front porch of 451 McKoy Street, Clinton, North Carolina on Thursday, September 6, 2007 at 3:22 p.m. Detective Grady also observed a vehicle at the residence registered to Andrew Oates.\n\u2014This Affiant obtained a copy of Julio Keith\u2019s Criminal History which included the following information: Lists Julio Keith\u2019s alias names as Poppyates Keith, X Poppyoates, Julia Keith, Poppy Keith, Poppy Oates, Julio S. Keith and Andrew Kennedy. Julio Keith has been charged with possession of Cocaine and Obstruct and Delay by Sampson County Sheriff\u2019s Office, Possession of Stolen Firearm and Carrying Concealed Weapon by Clinton Police Department and Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon by Clinton Police Department. Julio Keith is currently serving Federal Probation stemming from charges of Conspiracy to Distribute Cocaine and Distribution of Crack Cocaine.\n\u2014On or about June 4, 2007, Detective Grady received a telephone call from ah unidentified male stating 451 McKoy Street was a drug house and something needed to be done about it.\n\u2014This Affiant obtained a copy of Andrew Oates Criminal History which showed Oates being charged, with murder August 16, 1991 by Sampson County Sheriffs Office. Oates plead guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to nine years confinement. Andrew Oates criminal history was obtained utilizing the information provided by Andrew Oates to the City of Clinton Water and Sewer Department.\nOur Supreme Court has stated that \u201c[t]he Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution prohibits the issuance of a search warrant except upon a finding of probable cause for the search.\u201d State v. Miller, 282 N.C. 633, 638, 194 S.E.2d 353, 356 (1973); see State v. McKinney, 361 N.C. 53, 57, 637 S.E.2d 868, 871-72 (2006) (\u201cThe Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals \u2018against unreasonable searches and seizures\u2019 and provides that search warrants may only be issued \u2018upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.\u2019 \u201d (quoting U.S. Const, amend. IV)). N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-244 (2009) states that an application for a search warrant must contain:\n(1) The name and title of the applicant; and\n(2) A statement that there is probable cause to believe that items subject to seizure under G.S. 15A-242 may be found in or upon a designated or described place, vehicle, or person; and\n(3) Allegations of fact supporting the statement. The statements must be supported by one or more affidavits particularly 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; and\n(4) A request that the court issue a search warrant directing a search for and the seizure of the items in question.\n\u201cReviewing courts should give great deference to the magistrate\u2019s determination of probable cause and should not conduct a de novo review of the evidence to determine whether probable cause existed at the time the warrant was issued.\u201d McKinney, 361 N.C. at 62, 637 S.E.2d at 875 (citation and quotation marks omitted). Our Supreme Court has adopted the \u201ctotality of the circumstances\u201d test for determining the existence of probable cause:\nThe task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the \u201cveracity\u201d and \u201cbasis of knowledge\u201d of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a \u201csubstantial basis for . . . concluding] that probable cause existed.\u201d\nState v. Arrington, 311 N.C. 633, 638, 319 S.E.2d 254, 257-58 (1984) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39, 76 L.Ed. 2d 527, 548 (1983)). \u201cWhen the application is based upon information provided by an informant, the affidavit should state circumstances supporting the informant\u2019s reliability and basis for the belief that a search will find the items sought.\u201d State v. Washburn, 201 N.C. App. 93, 100-01, 685 S.E.2d 555, 560-61 (2009) (citation omitted), disc, review denied, 363 N.C. 811, 692 S.E.2d 876 (2010). The information contained in the affidavit \u201cmust establish a nexus between the objects sought and the place to be searched.\u201d State v. McCoy, 100 N.C. App. 574, 576, 397 S.E.2d 355, 357 (1990) (citations omitted). \u201cIn cases involving an informant\u2019s tip probable cause is determined by a totality of the circumstances test after balancing the various indicia of reliability and unreliability attendant to the informant\u2019s tip.\u201d State v. Green, 194 N.C. App. 623, 630, 670 S.E.2d 635, 640, aff\u2019d, 363 N.C. 620, 683 S.E.2d 208 (2009). Accordingly, we first address the State\u2019s arguments as to the informant\u2019s reliability.\n1. Informant\u2019s Reliability\nThe State first contends that \u201c[u]nder the totality of the circumstances, the affidavit provides sufficient facts to show the informant\u2019s basis of knowledge and reliability.\u201d Defendant counters that \u201cthe anonymous sources were not sufficiently reliable or corroborated and did not provide probable cause.\u201d\nWhen evaluating the reliability of an informant\u2019s tip \u201cthe informant\u2019s veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge must be considered.\u201d State v. Williams, _ N.C. App. _, _, 703 S.E.2d 905, 910 (2011) (citation omitted). \u201cSeveral factors are used to assess reliability [of an informant\u2019s tip] including: (1) whether the informant was known or anonymous, (2) the informant\u2019s history of reliability, and (3) whether information provided by the informant could be and was independently corroborated by the police.\u201d Green, 194 N.C. App. at 627, 670 S.E.2d at 638 (citations and quotation marks omitted); see State v. Earhart, 134 N.C. App. 130, 134, 516 S.E.2d 883, 886 (\u201c[Independent police corroboration of the facts given by the informant are important in evaluating the reliability of the informant\u2019s tip.\u201d), appeal dismissed, 351 N.C. 112, 540 S.E.2d 372 (1999). We consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether an informant\u2019s tip \u201csufficiently provides indicia of reliabilityf.]\u201d Williams, _ N.C. App. at _, 703 S.E.2d at 910 (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 233, 76 L.Ed. 2d at 545).\nAn anonymous tipster obviously cannot have a verifiable \u201chistory of reliability,\u201d see Green, 194 N.C. App. at 627, 670 S.E.2d at 638, so in this situation, corroboration of facts provided by the tipster is the most useful method of determining the tipster\u2019s veracity and reliability. In this case, the law enforcement officers independently confirmed many of the facts provided by the tipster and they did not find any inaccuracies in the tipster\u2019s facts. Agent Eason\u2019s affidavit in the application for the search warrant contained very specific information from the second anonymous caller regarding Mr. Keith and defendant, and much of that information was verified by Agent Eason. The anonymous caller stated, and Agent Eason independently confirmed, that Mr. Keith was known as \u201cPoppy\u201d and resided in New York; Mr. Keith was on federal probation in New York as the result of drug charges; Mr. Keith had prior drug charges in North Carolina; Mr. Keith was present at his parents\u2019 home at 451 McKoy Street in Clinton, North Carolina; defendant was Mr. Keith\u2019s stepfather; and defendant \u201chad killed someone.\u201d Agent Eason checked Mr. Keith\u2019s\ncriminal history which showed that some of Mr. Keith\u2019s alias names included: \u201cPoppyates Keith, X Poppyoates, . . . Poppy Keith, [and] Poppy Oates[;]\u201d Agent Eason talked with Officer Jim Long of Federal Probation and Parole and was told that Mr. Keith was on federal probation in North Carolina but his probation had been transferred to New York on 20 October 2004. Agent Eason confirmed that Mr. Keith was \u201cserving Federal Probation stemming from charges of Conspiracy to Distribute Cocaine and Distribution of Crack Cocainef;]\u201d and according to his criminal record, Mr. Keith had been charged in North Carolina with drug and weapon charges, \u201cpossession of Cocaine\u201d and \u201cPossession of Stolen Firearm and Carrying Concealed Weapon... and Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon.\u201d After obtaining a North Carolina DMV photograph of Mr. Keith, Detective Grady of the Clinton Police Department, at 3:22 p.m. on 6 September 2007, observed and identified Mr. Keith on the front porch of the residence at 451 McKoy Street in Clinton, North Carolina. Detective Grady checked with City of Clinton Water and Sewer Department and determined that defendant was listed as a customer at 451 McKoy Street in Clinton and that a car parked at the residence was registered to defendant. Agent Eason checked defendant\u2019s criminal record and discovered that defendant had been charged with murder in 1991 but had \u201cplead guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to nine years confinement.\u201d Additionally, a prior anonymous caller on 4 June 2007 told police \u201c451 McKoy Street was a drug house and something needed to be done about it.\u201d Although the information provided by the first anonymous caller alone certainly would not have been sufficient to support issuance of a search warrant, it tended to support the additional and more detailed information provided by the second anonymous caller. Given the specific information supplied by the anonymous callers, much of which was verified by Agent Eason, we hold that, in the totality of the circumstances, the second anonymous tip had sufficient indicia of reliability. See State v. Brown, 199 N.C. App. 253, 258-59, 681 S.E.2d 460, 464 (2009) (holding that because the police independently corroborated \u201cthe substantial amount of information [the informant] provided with facts gathered throughout the investigation\u201d the Court concluded that \u201c[t]he substantial level of detail and the independent corroboration indicated the reliability of the information [the informant] provided to [the police officer] under a totality of circumstances analysis.\u201d); State v. Bone, 354 N.C. 1, 10-11, 550 S.E.2d 482, 488 (2001) (as police were able to independently corroborate \u201calmost all of the information in the anonymous tip\u201d with the particular facts about the crime uncovered during the investigation, this corroboration was an indication of reliability, and gave credibility to the anonymous tipster.), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 940, 152 L.Ed. 2d 231 (2002).\n2. Sufficient Nexus to Defendant\u2019s Residence\nThe State next contends that the trial court erred in concluding that Agent Eason\u2019s affidavit did not contain a sufficient nexus between the objects sought and the place to be searched. Defendant contends that the trial court was correct in its conclusion that \u201cno where in the application for the search warrant and affidavit to establish probable cause is stated a nexus for a probable cause for a search of the Defendant\u2019s residence at 451 McKoy Street, Clinton, NC 28328.\u201d As noted above, the affidavit in support of a search warrant \u201cmust establish a nexus between the objects sought and the place to be searched. Usually this connection is made by showing that criminal activity actually occurred at the location to be searched or that the fruits of a crime that occurred elsewhere are observed at a certain place.\u201d McCoy, 100 N.C. App. at 576, 397 S.E.2d at 357 (citations omitted). But when \u201c[t]here is no firsthand evidence in the affidavits supporting this search warrant application that [contraband] had been observed.... North Carolina case law supports the premise that firsthand information of contraband seen in one location will sustain a finding to search a second location.\u201d Id. at 576-77, 397 S.E.2d at 357. \u201cHowever, evidence obtained in one location cannot provide probable cause for the search of another location when the evidence offered does not \u2018implicate the premises to be searched.\u2019 \u201d Washburn, 201 N.C. App. at 101, 685 S.E.2d at 561 (quoting State v. Goforth, 65 N.C. App. 302, 308, 309 S.E.2d 488, 493 (1983)).\nHere, the affidavit provided sufficient nexus between the contraband and defendant\u2019s residence at 451 McKoy Street in Clinton, North Carolina. The second anonymous caller gave firsthand observations and information regarding Mr. Keith\u2019s involvement in criminal activity in New York: the caller had seen Mr. Keith with drugs and had overheard Mr. Keith\u2019s wife asking him a question regarding a quantity of drugs; the caller had seen Mr. Keith wrapping up handguns in bubble-wrap and paper, even though he was on federal probation; Mr. Keith was leaving New York because he believed that he had sold drugs to an undercover officer; and Mr. Keith was traveling to North Carolina to sell drugs. The trial court seemed to place special emphasis in finding of fact No. 16 upon the fact that the anonymous caller did not state exactly where Mr. Keith was seen wrapping up the guns, but his location when he was wrapping the guns was not nearly as important as the information that he was travelling to a specific location \u2014 the home of \u201chis parents, Jessica and Andrew Oates, located at 451 McKoy Street in Clinton, North Carolina\u201d \u2014 apparently with the guns, for the purpose of selling drugs. Law enforcement officers observed Mr. Keith at this residence on 6 September 2007. Additionally, the first anonymous caller had also stated to police on 4 June 2007 that \u201c451 McKoy Street was a drug house and something needed to be done about it.\u201d Given the second informant\u2019s firsthand observations of Mr. Keith\u2019s involvement with illegal drugs and guns in New York, see McCoy, 100 N.C. App. at 576-77, 397 S.E.2d at 357; Mr. Keith\u2019s plans to travel at a specific time to North Carolina to sell drugs and to stay in defendant\u2019s residence; and the confirmation that Mr. Keith was actually staying at defendant\u2019s residence during that specific time does \u201c \u2018implicate the premises to be searched[,]\u2019 \u201d see Washburn, 201 N.C. App. at 101, 685 S.E.2d at 561, and, therefore, provided a sufficient nexus between the contraband and defendant\u2019s residence. See McCoy, 100 N.C. App. at 576, 397 S.E.2d at 357.\nIt is true that only Mr. Keith, and not defendant, was personally implicated in ongoing criminal activity by the second anonymous caller, but the focus of the search warrant in question was not the person to be searched, but the place to be searched, as is proper under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-244(2) (2007), which requires probable cause that items subject to seizure \u201cmay be found in or upon a designated or described place, vehicle, or person[.]\u201d The nexus between defendant\u2019s residence and contraband was established, and it was simply defendant\u2019s misfortune that he allowed his stepson to stay at his home, thus leading the police to discover the guns as a result of their investigation of Mr. Keith\u2019s activities at defendant\u2019s residence.\n3. Probable Cause to Search Defendant\u2019s Residence\nLastly, we address the issue of whether the affidavit provided sufficient information to provide probable cause to search defendant\u2019s residence. The State argues that \u201cthe information contained in the affidavit was sufficient under the totality of the circumstances test for the issuing judicial official to make a threshold determination that there was a \u2018fair probability\u2019 that guns and drugs would be at 451 McKoy Street, Clinton, and probable cause existed to search for them there.\u201d Defendant counters that \u201c[t]he trial court correctly concluded that the application in support of the search warrant did not provide probable cause to search [defendant\u2019s] residence.\u201d Defendant claims that the information provided by the two anonymous callers was too vague to support probable cause and that much of the information was \u201cstale\u201d as it related to past criminal activity by Mr. Keith and defendant.\nAs to vagueness, defendant argues that the first anonymous caller, in June, simply called the residence a \u201cdrug house\u201d and provided no more specific information as to how the caller would have known this information, exactly what type of drugs were being sold, or who was selling them. But as we previously noted, the information from the first anonymous caller alone was not the basis of the affidavit or the finding of probable cause; it was the more specific information from the second anonymous caller. As to the second anonymous caller, defendant argues that the caller did not personally see the drugs and did not state specifically that Mr. Keith would be taking a \u201ckilo\u201d or the guns to defendant\u2019s house. Yet as we previously discussed, the second caller did provide many facts which were independently confirmed by law enforcement and considering all of the information provided in its entirety, logical conclusion was that Mr. Keith was coming to stay at defendant\u2019s house to sell illegal drugs and that he possessed several guns. As we have previously determined, this information created a nexus between defendant\u2019s residence and the contraband which was the subject of the search warrant, and as such was not too vague to support the finding of probable cause.\nDefendant also contends that some of the information was too old to support the issuance of the warrant. Mr. Keith\u2019s criminal history was included as part of the affidavit in support of probable cause to search defendant\u2019s residence. Defendant argues that the specific dates for Mr. Keith\u2019s prior convictions were not provided. We have stated that \u201c[w]hen 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.\u201d McCoy, 100 N.C. App. at 577, 397 S.E.2d at 358.\nGenerally, two factors determine whether evidence of previous criminal activity is sufficient to later support a search warrant: (1) the amount of criminal activity and (2) the time period over which the activity occurred. \u201cAbsent additional facts tending to show otherwise, a one-shot type of crime, such as a single instance of possession or sale of some contraband, will support a finding of probable cause only for a few days at best.\u201d LaFave, supra \u00a7 3.7(a) at 78. \u201cHowever, where the affidavit properly recites facts indicating activity of a protracted and continuous nature, a course of conduct, the passage of time becomes less significant.\u201d U.S. v. Johnson, 461 F.2d 285, 287 (10th Cir. 1972). The continuity of the offense may be the most important factor in determining whether the probable cause is valid or stale.\nId.\nDefendant is correct that the affidavit does not state the dates of Mr. Keith\u2019s previous drug and weapon charges in North Carolina. But Mr. Keith\u2019s probation was transferred from North Carolina to New York in 2004, so it could be inferred that these offenses happened prior to 2004, while Mr. Keith was living in North Carolina. But even without an exact time period, these previous offenses coupled with the additional information in the \u201caffidavit properly recite [] facts indicating activity of a protracted and continuous nature, a course of conduct[,]\u201d see id., as Mr. Keith was placed on federal probation as early as 2004 in North Carolina for drug-related charges. Even though Mr. Keith was still on federal probation in New York, he was observed wrapping and packaging handguns which he could not legally possess; Mr. Keith continued to sell drugs in New York; and, in late August 2007, Mr. Keith had plans to travel to North Carolina for the purpose of selling drugs. In fact, his trip to North Carolina itself would be a violation of his probation. Thus, this information shows a pattern of involvement with weapons and illegal drugs from before 2004 up until August 2007. Accordingly, \u201cthe passage of time becomes less significant [,]\u201d and \u201cevidence of previous criminal activity\u201d by Mr. Keith was not stale. See id.\nThe district court in making its \u201cpractical, common sense decision\u201d could have determined from Agent Eason\u2019s affidavit that Mr. Keith, a person with a history of involvement in the illegal drug trade, had left New York for the purpose of selling drugs in North Carolina, and because he had a history of drug and gun offenses in North Carolina could have inferred that Mr. Keith would be in possession of drugs and/or guns at defendant\u2019s residence as he would be residing there during his week-long visit to North Carolina. In addition, the district court judge made his decision regarding the issuance of the search warrant knowing that Agent Eason had only a short time to act on the anonymous informant\u2019s tip. The second anonymous informant called on 6 September 2007 and reported that Mr. Keith had arrived on 1 September 2007 for a week-long stay, so that Agent Eason had only one or two days to corroborate the information and to act on the informants\u2019 tips. Despite the shortness of time, Agent Eason corroborated a great deal of the information provided by the second informant prior to applying for the search warrant. Therefore, in applying the totality of the circumstances test prescribed in Arrington, 311 N.C. at 638, 319 S.E.2d at 257-58, and giving proper deference to the decision of the district court to issue the search warrant, see McKinney, 361 N.C. at 62, 637 S.E.2d at 875, we hold that the search warrant application provided a substantial basis for the district court judge to conclude there was probable cause to believe drugs and/or guns would be found in defendant\u2019s home. See Brown, 199 N.C. App. at 259-60, 681 S.E.2d at 464-65 (the informant\u2019s tip combined with the independent corroboration of that information during the subsequent police investigation provided sufficient \u201cprobable cause to arrest defendant\u201d); Bone, 354 N.C. at 11, 550 S.E.2d at 488 (holding that the anonymous tip independently corroborated by police established probable cause for the warrantless arrest of defendant.). Therefore, as the warrant affidavit provided sufficient probable cause to permit the search of defendant\u2019s residence, the trial court erred in allowing defendant\u2019s motion to suppress. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court\u2019s order and remand for further proceedings.\nREVERSED AND REMANDED.\nJudge BRYANT concurs.\nJudge BEASLEY concurred prior to 17 December 2012.\n. The affidavit did not list the calls received in chronological order; in the affidavit, the 4 June 2007 call was listed after the more detailed 6 September 2007 call. For the sake of clarity, we will refer to the June call as the \u201cfirst call\u201d and the September call as the \u201csecond call.\u201d\n. We note that in this case, a district court judge made the determination as to probable cause in the search warrant application, rather than a magistrate. The same standard would apply to our review of a determination of probable cause by either a district court judge or a magistrate.\n. Even though defendant was not the main focus of the information supporting the search warrant, as both Mr. Keith and defendant were convicted felons, possession of firearms by either one of them would be a crime, even if illegal drugs were not found in the residence.", "type": "majority", "author": "STROUD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Joan M. Cunningham, for the State.", "Anne Bleyman, for defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ANDREW JACKSON OATES\nNo. COA10-725-2\nFiled 31 December 2012\nSearch and Seizure \u2014 search warrant \u2014 probable cause \u2014 anonymous tip \u2014 nexus\u2014warrant affidavit\nThe trial court erred in a possession of a firearm by a convicted felon case by granting defendant\u2019s motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of a search of defendant\u2019s residence. Under the totality of the circumstances, a second anonymous tip had sufficient indicia of reliability, there was a sufficient nexus between the contraband and defendant\u2019s residence, and the warrant affidavit provided sufficient probable cause to permit the search of defendant\u2019s residence.\nAppeal by the State from order entered 22 March 2010 by Judge Russell J. Lanier, Jr. in Superior Court, Sampson County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 November 2010. By opinion filed on 6 September 2011, the Court of Appeals dismissed the State\u2019s appeal. By opinion filed 5 October 2012, the North Carolina Supreme Court vacated this Court\u2019s opinion and remanded for further consideration.\nAttorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Joan M. Cunningham, for the State.\nAnne Bleyman, for defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0634-01", "first_page_order": 644, "last_page_order": 658 }