{ "id": 8552669, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT SPURGEON WHITLEY", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Whitley", "decision_date": "1977-08-03", "docket_number": "No. 7719SC192", "first_page": "753", "last_page": "755", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "33 N.C. App. 753" } ], "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": "158 S.E. 2d 25", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 N.C. 160", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571742 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/272/0160-01" ] }, { "cite": "217 S.E. 2d 677", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "288 N.C. 252", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567714, 8567810, 8567783, 8567880, 8567852 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/288/0252-01", "/nc/288/0252-03", "/nc/288/0252-02", "/nc/288/0252-05", "/nc/288/0252-04" ] }, { "cite": "216 S.E. 2d 470", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "26 N.C. App. 464", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553374 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/26/0464-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 S.Ct. 1990", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "44 L.Ed. 2d 477", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "421 U.S. 987", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 541890, 541282, 541378, 541959, 541706, 541194, 541102, 541363, 541241 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/421/0987-07", "/us/421/0987-05", "/us/421/0987-03", "/us/421/0987-09", "/us/421/0987-01", "/us/421/0987-06", "/us/421/0987-08", "/us/421/0987-02", "/us/421/0987-04" ] }, { "cite": "209 S.E. 2d 462", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "465" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 41", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563315 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "45" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0041-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 358, "char_count": 4943, "ocr_confidence": 0.663, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.66280455596138e-08, "percentile": 0.35296343531997426 }, "sha256": "dd3248600a65cca3727df372206b9172c9023bbe875458585b904fcb884a9c04", "simhash": "1:b2ff34b416f5285d", "word_count": 833 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:09:28.190456+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Parker and Clark concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT SPURGEON WHITLEY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nPrior to trial, defendant moved to suppress evidence with respect to certain items which had been located in the rear seat of his automobile. On voir dire, the State introduced evidence which tended to show: On 29 April 1976 at approximately 7:30 p.m. Raymond Hoover returned to his mobile home to find that its inside lights were on and a car was parked in front. Hoover inspected the trailer and discovered that the front and back doors had been pried loose. While Hoover was standing approximately 15 feet from the trailer, a light inside was turned on, enabling Hoover to see defendant. Hoover went inside to get his gun, whereupon defendant fled through the back door. Hoover ran out the front door, \u201ccaptured\u201d defendant and detained him until the police arrived.\nInside the trailer, all the drawers had been taken out. The sliding doors on the bedroom closet were torn down, and the contents were strewn on the bed. The stereo equipment had been disassembled and was sitting beside the door. Thinking that some of his property might be therein, Hoover opened the door of the car parked beside his trailer. He saw nothing belonging to him inside but did observe a rifle, a jewelry box and a woman's pocketbook on the back seat.\nWhen investigating officers arrived, they shined a light in defendant\u2019s vehicle and also saw the rifle, jewelry box and pocketbook. However, they did not remove the items from the vehicle then because they had no report at that time that the goods were stolen. Defendant was taken into custody, and his car was towed to a gas station.\nSubsequently that evening, the investigating officers learned of another break-in which had occurred at the trailer of Odell Lambert, who lived approximately four miles from Hoover. Lambert reported that a rifle, jewelry box and pocketbook had been stolen. Officers then returned to the gas station where they looked in defendant\u2019s car\u2019s rear window and again saw items matching the description of Lambert\u2019s property. They seized the property, and Lambert subsequently identified the items as his.\nAt the close of the evidence, the trial court found that the items seized from defendant\u2019s car were in plain view of the officers at the time they were observed, and that when the seizure occurred, the officers had probable cause to believe that the items were stolen. The court then denied the motion to suppress. The State repeated its evidence before the jury, and the rifle, jewelry box and pocketbook were admitted into evidence.\nIn his sole argument on appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting the items seized from his car and in denying his motion to dismiss the charges related thereto. We disagree.\n\u201cThe constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply where a search is not necessary, and where the contraband subject matter is fully disclosed and open to the eye and hand.\u201d State v. Crews, 286 N.C. 41, 45, 209 S.E. 2d 462, 465 (1974), cert. den., 421 U.S. 987, 44 L.Ed. 2d 477, 95 S.Ct. 1990 (1975). Here, the property seized was visible to the officers standing outside defendant\u2019s car. Thus, the items were in \u201cplain view.\u201d State v. Wolfe, 26 N.C. App. 464, 216 S.E. 2d 470, cert. den., 288 N.C. 252, 217 S.E. 2d 677 (1975). Moreover, we find no merit in defendant\u2019s contention that the items were not in plain view because a flashlight was used to see them. See State v. Craddock, 272 N.C. 160, 158 S.E. 2d 25 (1967). As the property discovered in defendant\u2019s car was in plain view, no warrant was necessary for its seizure. These assignments are overruled.\nDefendant received a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Parker and Clark concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MORRIS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Elisha H. Bunting, Jr., for the State.", "Smith, Casper & Smith,\u2019 by Archie L. Smith, for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT SPURGEON WHITLEY\nNo. 7719SC192\n(Filed 3 August 1977)\nSearches and Seizures \u00a7 1\u2014 items in plain view in vehicle \u2014 warrantless seizure proper\nIn a prosecution for felonious breaking and entering and larceny, the trial court did not err in admitting items seized from defendant\u2019s car without a warrant where officers seized the items after simply looking into the car, shining a flashlight on the back seat, and observing the items in plain view.\nAppeal by defendant from Long, Judge. Judgment entered 28 October 1976 in Superior Court, Randolph County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 June 1977.\nDefendant was charged by indictment in proper form with two counts of felonious breaking and entering and one count of felonious larceny. He entered pleas of not guilty and was convicted by a jury on all charges. Judgment was entered thereon sentencing defendant to imprisonment for consecutive terms of 5 years on the larceny charge and 10 years on each breaking and entering charge.\nOther relevant facts are set out in the opinion below.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Elisha H. Bunting, Jr., for the State.\nSmith, Casper & Smith,\u2019 by Archie L. Smith, for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0753-01", "first_page_order": 781, "last_page_order": 783 }