{
  "id": 8555818,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CALVIN LOUIS BRANNON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Brannon",
  "decision_date": "1975-05-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 7521SC126",
  "first_page": "635",
  "last_page": "637",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "25 N.C. App. 635"
    }
  ],
  "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": "5 A.L.R. 2d 394",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d",
      "year": 1949,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 S.E. 2d 692",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.C. 259",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558566,
        8558630,
        8558599,
        8558615,
        8558583
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/283/0259-01",
        "/nc/283/0259-05",
        "/nc/283/0259-03",
        "/nc/283/0259-04",
        "/nc/283/0259-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 S.E. 2d 755",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 N.C. App. 269",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555032
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/17/0269-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 S.E. 2d 226",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 N.C. 459",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566209,
        8566342,
        8566381,
        8566415,
        8566289
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/277/0459-01",
        "/nc/277/0459-03",
        "/nc/277/0459-04",
        "/nc/277/0459-05",
        "/nc/277/0459-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "177 S.E. 2d 330",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 N.C. App. 719",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554074
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/9/0719-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 299,
    "char_count": 5640,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.583,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.818958499232071e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8982141429867146
    },
    "sha256": "c616cd24e1c9b60e9b610ffd4f2adb357922cc1940771ef709dcf927717b57fe",
    "simhash": "1:1a68a1ea02d61af6",
    "word_count": 947
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:30:12.075015+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CALVIN LOUIS BRANNON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nDefendant assigns as error the denial of his motion to suppress any and all evidence regarding a leather dog leash seized pursuant to a search of-' the trunk of his automobile. After an extensive voir dire hearing on the defendant\u2019s motion to suppress, the trial court made detailed findings and conclusions, which included the following:\n\u201c4. The search warrant offered in evidence as State\u2019s Exhibit Number Two was issued upon probable cause as set out in the affidavit to obtain the warrant as amplified by the testimony of Chief Wilson at the voir dire hearing and is a valid search warrant notwithstanding the fact that the magistrate signed the warrant in the space set aside for the affiant and that Chief Wilson signed in the space set aside for the signature of the magistrate.\u201d\nCiting G.S. 15-26 which requires that a search warrant be signed by the issuing officer, the defendant argues that the search warrant in the. instant case was not \u201cproperly signed\u201d because the Chief of Police signed the search warrant and not the. magistrate. The search warrant shows on its face that it was .signed by the magistrate at the place set aside for the affiant and that the Chief of Police signed it at- the place set aside for the magistrate. G.S. 15-27 (b) provides that mere technical deviations in a search warrant do not invalidate the warrant. Clearly, the fact that the issuing magistrate\u2019s signature was misplaced on the warrant is a mere technical deviation, which does not invalidate the search warrant.\n. Next, the defendant contends the search warrant was issued \u201cwithout affidavit,\u201d because the affidavit indicates that it was signed at 1:30 p.m., while the search warrant itself shows on its face, that it- was issued at 1:20 a.m. While the- record indicates that the affidavit, was actually signed subsequent to the signing of the search warrant, the trial judge\u2019s finding and conclusion that the search warrant \u201cwas issued upon probable cause as set out in the affidavit to obtain the warrant\u201d is supported by evidence adduced at the voir dire hearing and is conclusive on appeal. State v. Wingard, 9 N.C. App. 719, 177 S.E. 2d 330 (1970), appeal dismissed, 277 N.C. 459, 178 S.E. 2d 226 (1971).\nFinally, defendant contends that the evidence in the affidavit to establish probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant was illegally obtained. In State v. Harris, filed 16 April 1975, Judge Clark, speaking for this court, said: \u25a0\n\u201cWe adopt the majority rule that where the search warrant is valid on its face, and the sworn allegations are sufficient to establish probable cause, the defendant may not dispute and attack the allegations, or the credibility of the affiant or his informant, in the voir dire hearing on the defendant\u2019s motion to suppress the evidence seized by law officers pursuant to the search warrant. State v. Salem, 17 N.C. App. 269, 193 S.E. 2d 755 (1973), cert. denied, 283 N.C. 259, 195 S.E. 2d 692 (1973). See also Annot., 5 A.L.R. 2d 394 (1949).\u201d\nTherefore, since the search warrant is valid on its face and the sworn allegations in the affidavit are sufficient to establish probable cause, it is not necessary for us to discuss the validity of the allegations in the affidavit or the credibility of the affiant. We hold the search of the defendant\u2019s automobile and the seizure of the leather dog leash pursuant to the search warrant was proper and the trial court did not err in denying the defendant\u2019s motion to suppress the evidence.\nDefendant attacks other findings and conclusions of the trial court sustaining on other grounds the validity of the search and seizure; however, in view of our decision holding that the search warrant is valid, it is not necessary for us to discuss these contentions. Defendant\u2019s one assignment of error is overruled.\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Raymond L. Yasser for the State.",
      "Blanchard, Tucker, Twiggs & Denson by Irvin B. Tucker, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CALVIN LOUIS BRANNON\nNo. 7521SC126\n(Filed 7 May 1975)\n1. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 3 \u2014 signing of warrant \u2014 no invalidation for technical error\nSearch warrant was not invalidated by the fact that the magistrate signed it at the place set aside for the affiant and that the Chief of Police, who was the affiant, signed it at the place set aside for the magistrate.\n2.. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 3\u2014 affidavit \u2014 time of signing\nThough the record indicated that the affidavit was actually signed subsequent to the signing of the search warrant, the trial judge\u2019s finding and conclusion that the search warrant \u201cwas issued upon probable cause as set out in the affidavit to obtain the warrant\u201d was supported by the evidence adduced at the voir dire hearing.\n3. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 3 \u2014 warrant valid on its face \u2014 allegations sufficient to establish probable cause\nWhere the search warrant was valid on its face and the sworn allegations in the affidavit were sufficient to establish probable cause, it is not necessary for the court on appeal to discuss the validity of the allegations in the affidavit or the credibility of the affiant.\nAppeal by defendant from Extern, Judge. Judgment entered 17 September 1974 in Superior Court, Forsyth County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 April 1975.\nThe defendant, Calvin Louis Brannon, was charged in a warrant proper in form with the misdemeanor larceny of three dogs belonging to George 0. Gunter.\nThe defendant pleaded not guilty but was found guilty by the jury. From a judgment that he be imprisoned for eighteen months, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Raymond L. Yasser for the State.\nBlanchard, Tucker, Twiggs & Denson by Irvin B. Tucker, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0635-01",
  "first_page_order": 663,
  "last_page_order": 665
}