{
  "id": 8548827,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLES HENRY WILLIAMS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1976-10-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 762SC407",
  "first_page": "237",
  "last_page": "240",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "31 N.C. App. 237"
    }
  ],
  "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": "124 S.E. 845",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1924,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "846"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 N.C. 475",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654227
      ],
      "year": 1924,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "476-77"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/188/0475-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 S.E. 2d 706",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.C. 556",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559383
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "560"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/283/0556-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 S.E. 2d 100",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1954,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "103"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 N.C. 476",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8603420
      ],
      "year": 1954,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "480"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/240/0476-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 368,
    "char_count": 6697,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.689,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4279765551227057e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6503440934201183
    },
    "sha256": "c40b799ab94d239e88a0c7089cce78fbd93631492580e9e6c026c03fe6b265d5",
    "simhash": "1:ede1afba3e2db173",
    "word_count": 1083
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:26.493722+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLES HENRY WILLIAMS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CLARK, Judge.\nThe defendant\u2019s only assignment of error is the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence offered by Plymouth Policeman Ronald McKimmey and State Troopers Terry Toler and M. D. Foley on the ground that this evidence was obtained pursuant to the arrest by Policeman McKimmey which was illegal because it was made more than three miles outside the town limits of Plymouth in violation of G.S. 160A-286.\nAll of the evidence tends to show that Officer McKimmey pursued defendant in his motor vehicle from the Town of Plymouth at high speed for a distance of about eight miles outside the town; that State Trooper Toler joined the pursuit about four miles outside of Plymouth; that when defendant stopped and stood beside his vehicle, both Officer McKimmey and Trooper Toler approached, searched and handcuffed him. Officer Mc-Kimmey arrested defendant and returned with him to Plymouth.\nAt the time of the offense, 11 May 1975, G.S. 160A-286, in part, provided that a city policeman could pursue an offender for a distance of three miles outside the corporate limits of the city for the purpose of making an arrest. The State concedes that under the law existing at that time defendant\u2019s arrest was illegal. \u201c[T]he rule is that where the right and power of arrest without warrant is regulated by statute, an arrest without warrant except as authorized by statute is illegal.\u201d State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 480, 83 S.E. 2d 100, 103 (1954). It is noted that the foregoing provision of G.S. 160A-286 was deleted by a 1973 amendment, effective 1 September 1975.\nThough the arrest of the defendant was illegal it was not unconstitutional because there was probable cause to make the arrest. Nor were there any oppressive circumstances surrounding the arrest warranting the exclusion of any evidence. In State v. Eubanks, 283 N.C. 556, 196 S.E. 2d 706 (1973), a law officer arrested defendant without a warrant on the charge of driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor though the offense was not committed in his presence. In holding the evidence of the breathalyzer test \u201cand the officer\u2019s observations of this defendant admissible\u201d the court observed: \u201cWe hold that nothing in our law requires the exclusion of evidence obtained following an arrest which is constitutionally valid but illegal for failure to first obtain an arrest warrant.\u201d 283 N.C. at 560.\nWe note, however, that the exclusionary rule in Eubanks has been broadened by the Criminal Procedure Act, G.S. Chap. 15A, effective 1 September 1975, which, in addition to the constitutionally required exclusions, provides in G.S. 15A-974(2) for suppression of evidence if\n\u201cIt is obtained as a result of a substantial violation of the provisions of this Chapter. In determining whether a violation is substantial, the court must consider all the circumstances, including:\na. The importance of the particular interest violated;\nb. The extent of the deviation from lawful conduct;\nc. The extent to which the violation was willful;\nd. The extent to which exclusion will tend to deter future violations of this Chapter.\u201d\nThis statute sets more stringent standards for arrest than those required by the federal constitution and requires a wider application of the exclusionary rule to meet these statutory standards relating not only to arrest and to search and seizure, but also \u201csubstantial violation\u201d of all other provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act.\nThe concession by the State that the arrest was illegal because made by a city policeman in violation of G.S. 160A-286 is questionable. In the case before us the offenses were committed by the defendant in the presence of both City Policeman Mc-Kimmey and State Trooper Toler. Both officers had the authority to arrest without a warrant under G.S. 15A-401 (b) \u201cany person who the officer has probable cause to believe has committed a criminal offense in the officer\u2019s presence.\u201d The evidence is uncontradicted that State Trooper Toler, whose authority to arrest was geographically limited only by State lines, joined in the pursuit, observed the offenses committed, and jointly with the city policeman apprehended and handcuffed the defendant. \u201cAn arrest consists in taking custody of another person under real or assumed authority for the purpose of detaining him to answer a criminal charge or civil demand.\u201d Stancill v. Underwood, 188 N.C. 475, 476-77, 124 S.E. 845, 846 (1924). A lawful arrest by the State Trooper would not become unlawful because the city policeman who joined in making the arrest was outside this territorial jurisdiction.\nIn any event, there was probable cause to make the arrest. Assuming, arguendo, that the arrest was illegal, it was constitutionally valid. Nor should the evidence be suppressed under G.S. 15A-974(2) on the ground that the arrest was a \u201csubstantial violation\u201d of the Criminal Procedure Act because the arrest by the city policeman was in violation of G.S. 160A-286 and not the Criminal Procedure Act. We find\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CLARK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General Robert G. Webb for the State.",
      "Bailey & Cockrell by Arthur E. Cockrell for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLES HENRY WILLIAMS\nNo. 762SC407\n(Filed 20 October 1976)\n1. Arrest and Bail \u00a7 4; Criminal Law \u00a7 84 \u2014 arrest made by city officer outside jurisdiction \u2014 arrest illegal but constitutional\nThough an arrest by a city police officer made more than three miles from the city limits was illegal, it was not unconstitutional and evidence obtained pursuant to the arrest was therefore constitutionally admissible; furthermore, the exclusion of the evidence was not required under G.S. 15A-974(2) on the ground that the arrest was a \u201csubstantial violation\u201d of the Criminal Procedure Act since the arrest was in violation of G.S. 160A-286 and not the Criminal Procedure Act.\n2. Arrest and Bail \u00a7 4 \u2014 lawful arrest by State Trooper \u2014 assist by city officer outside jurisdiction \u2014 arrest lawful\nA lawful arrest by a State Trooper would not become unlawful because the city policeman who joined in making the arrest was outside his territorial jurisdiction.\nAppeal by defendant from Cohoon, Judge. Judgments entered 14 January 1976 in Superior Court, Washington County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 September 1976.\nThe defendant was convicted on charges, consolidated for trial, of (1) driving a motor vehicle upon the public highways while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a second offense, (2) speeding, and (3) failing to stop on signal from a law officer.\nFrom judgments imposing concurrent sentences to imprisonment, defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General Robert G. Webb for the State.\nBailey & Cockrell by Arthur E. Cockrell for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0237-01",
  "first_page_order": 265,
  "last_page_order": 268
}