{ "id": 8547176, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOE LOUIS WOOTEN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wooten", "decision_date": "1977-09-21", "docket_number": "No. 778SC286", "first_page": "85", "last_page": "90", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "34 N.C. App. 85" } ], "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": "200 A. 2d 919", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "235 Md. 133", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Md.", "case_ids": [ 2297897 ], "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/md/235/0133-01" ] }, { "cite": "159 Colo. 223", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Colo.", "case_ids": [ 5317374 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/colo/159/0223-01" ] }, { "cite": "290 P. 2d 531", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1955, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "45 Cal. 2d 645", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. 2d", "case_ids": [ 4390298 ], "year": 1955, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-2d/45/0645-01" ] }, { "cite": "16 L.Ed. 2d 1027", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "86 S.Ct. 1962", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "384 U.S. 1024", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12096323, 12096272, 12096434, 12096374, 12096407, 12096538, 12096573, 12096478 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/384/1024-02", "/us/384/1024-01", "/us/384/1024-05", "/us/384/1024-03", "/us/384/1024-04", "/us/384/1024-07", "/us/384/1024-08", "/us/384/1024-06" ] }, { "cite": "355 F. 2d 151", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 842170 ], "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/355/0151-01" ] }, { "cite": "323 F. Supp. 967", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 3225303 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/323/0967-01" ] }, { "cite": "398 F. 2d 305", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 2143494 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/398/0305-01" ] }, { "cite": "128 U.S. App. D.C. 354", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "U.S. App. D.C.", "case_ids": [ 3577716 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [] }, { "cite": "24 L. Ed. 2d 433", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "90 S.Ct. 448", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "396 U.S. 967", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11404621, 11404717, 11404751, 11404785, 11404593, 11404690, 11404664, 11404636 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/396/0967-02", "/us/396/0967-06", "/us/396/0967-07", "/us/396/0967-08", "/us/396/0967-01", "/us/396/0967-05", "/us/396/0967-04", "/us/396/0967-03" ] }, { "cite": "412 F. 2d 98", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 2187658 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/412/0098-01" ] }, { "cite": "463 F. 2d 949", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1344224 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/463/0949-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 U.S. App. D.C. 113", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "U.S. App. D.C.", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "474 F. 2d 699", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1252447 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/474/0699-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 S.E. 2d 445", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "9 N.C. App. 649", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553328 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/9/0649-01" ] }, { "cite": "216 S.E. 2d 396", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "26 N.C. App. 481", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553555 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/26/0481-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 S.E. 2d 269", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "270 N.C. 588", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569694 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/270/0588-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 202", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 122", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570040 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0122-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 L.Ed. 653", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "339 U.S. 56", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 362582 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/339/0056-01" ] }, { "cite": "194 S.E. 2d 9", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 N.C. 503", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566787 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/282/0503-01" ] }, { "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 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/283/0556-01" ] }, { "cite": "195 S.E. 2d 502", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 N.C. 203", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558310 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/283/0203-01" ] }, { "cite": "171 S.E. 2d 440", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "276 N.C. 98", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560277 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/276/0098-01" ] }, { "cite": "204 S.E. 2d 682", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 N.C. 328", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564140 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/285/0328-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 S.E. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "268 N.C. 69", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560152 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/268/0069-01" ] }, { "cite": "232 S.E. 2d 407", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "292 N.C. 203", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567872 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/292/0203-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 692, "char_count": 13781, "ocr_confidence": 0.82, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.5130614317218435e-07, "percentile": 0.8834026616995817 }, "sha256": "74ad3e4c1eed597372ad6ab4aa8d739d060a38f7be5726206b3cce4690c305fb", "simhash": "1:2d6b747b32836753", "word_count": 2281 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:28:15.830309+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Parker and Arnold concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOE LOUIS WOOTEN" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s first and second assignments of error are directed to the voir dire examination conducted by the court to determine the legality and constitutionality of the search of defendant in the parking lot and the admissibility of the articles seized during the search and the heroin later obtained from the floor of the police station.\nOn the voir dire the State offered evidence tending to show: At approximately 6:00 p.m. on 7 July 1976 State Bureau of Investigation Agent Steven G. Surratt and Goldsboro Police Officer David F. Cloutier met with a confidential informant in the parking lot of the Holiday Inn in Goldsboro. The informant stated that he had observed some people, including \u201cJoe Louis,\u201d \u201chustling\u201d drugs in an area known as \u201cthe block.\u201d Pursuant to Agent Surratt\u2019s instructions to call him if further information developed, the informant telephoned Agent Surratt the same evening and the two arranged to meet at 8:30 that night at the Quality Inn. At this meeting, informant advised that he had seen defendant Joe Louis Wooten in possession of tinfoil packets represented to be heroin and that defendant was still in the area known as \u201cthe block.\u201d Informant described defendant as a black male, 5\u20196\u201d to 5\u20197\u201d tall, approximately 160 pounds, wearing a black print shirt, a black and white cap, blue jeans and wire-rimmed sunglasses. Agent Surratt related this information to Officers Cloutier, Bundy and Blackmon arid the four officers then proceeded to \u201cthe block.\u201d Upon arriving there, they saw an individual in the parking lot matching the description given by the informant. He stated that he was Joe Louis Wooten. Agent Surratt advised defendant that he had probable cause to search defendant for heroin, and began to frisk him. During the frisk, eleven (11) .32 caliber bullets and eighty-nine dollars ($89) in paper money were taken from defendant\u2019s front pant\u2019s pockets, and a pistol was taken from defendant\u2019s waist. At this point, no drugs had been found. Defendant was then placed under arrest for carrying a concealed weapon, handcuffed and taken to the police station. At the station, defendant was taken into the detective room where Officer Bundy observed a small object fall from defendant\u2019s hands. The object was found to be a manilla envelope containing tinfoil packets of heroin. Defendant was then placed under arrest for possession of heroin. A subsequent strip search of defendant produced no further objects.\nOn the voir dire Agent Surratt testified that he had known the confidential informant for approximately one year prior to 7 July 1976. During this time, the informant had given Agent Surratt reliable information which had led to the arrest and conviction of at least one individual and the arrest of others he could not recall. The informant\u2019s information had proven to be reliable even though many times the information did not lead to an arrest or conviction.\nThe defendant offered no evidence at the voir dire.\nAt the conclusion of the voir dire, the trial judge made findings substantially as detailed above and concluded that the search was legal and the evidence seized during the search and the heroin obtained from the floor of the police station were admissible.\nAs defendant\u2019s second assignment of error is an integral part of his first assignment of error, it will be dealt with first. In this assignment, defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the confidential informant\u2019s information was reliable. In the instant case, such a finding is essential to the existence of the requisite probable cause to arrest defendant. This contention is clearly without merit. Agent Surratt\u2019s testimony on voir dire that the informant\u2019s information had always been reliable and had led to several arrests and a conviction in one instance, although it had at other times not resulted in arrests, was sufficient evidence to support the trial court\u2019s finding of reliability; as to this finding, we are bound. State v. Jackson, 292 N.C. 203, 232 S.E. 2d 407 (1977); State v. Gray, 268 N.C. 69, 150 S.E. 2d 1 (1966).\nDefendant\u2019s first assignment of error challenges the legality of the warrantless search in the parking lot relative to which defendant makes three contentions. First, defendant contends that the officers lacked probable cause to believe defendant was committing a felony in their presence in that the informant\u2019s information was unreliable. Referring to our discussion of defendant\u2019s second assignment of error hereinabove, we can find no merit in this contention. Not only was the informant\u2019s information reliable, but it was also sufficient to establish probable cause. Probable cause \u201cmay be based upon information given to the officer by another, the source of such information being reasonably reliable.\u201d State v. Shore, 285 N.C. 328, 204 S.E. 2d 682 (1974); State v. Roberts, 276 N.C. 98, 171 S.E. 2d 440 (1970). In the case at bar, Agent Surratt was able to test the accuracy of the informant\u2019s information when he observed the defendant. Once he corroborated the description of the defendant and his presence at the named location, Agent Surratt had reasonable grounds to believe a felony was being committed in his presence which in turn created probable cause to arrest and search defendant.\nDefendant next contends that even if probable cause to arrest defendant existed, there was no justification for not obtaining a warrant before confronting him. We disagree.\nAn arrest is constitutionally valid whenever there exists probable cause to make it. Whether an arrest warrant must be obtained is determined by State law. State v. Streeter, 283 N.C. 203, 195 S.E. 2d 502 (1973); State v. Eubanks, 283 N.C. 556, 196 S.E. 2d 706 (1973). The right of a police officer to arrest a person without a warrant is set forth in G.S. 15A-401(b), which reads, in pertinent part, as follows;\n\u201c(1) Offense in Presence of Officer. \u2014 An officer may arrest without a warrant any person who the officer has probable cause to believe has committed a criminal offense in the officer\u2019s presence.\u201d\nThus, if the offense is committed \u201cin the officer\u2019s presence,\u201d the officer may effectuate the arrest without obtaining a warrant if he possesses the requisite probable cause. This is precisely the situation in the instant case as Agent Surratt, upon corroboration of the informant\u2019s information, had reasonable grounds to believe defendant was in possession of heroin, a felony; therefore, defendant was committing an offense in the officer\u2019s presence. See State v. Roberts, supra. As this was probable cause for defendant\u2019s arrest, an immediate search of defendant\u2019s person was proper.\nDefendant maintains in this contention that \u201cexigent circumstances\u201d must exist to justify the search and arrest of defendant without a warrant. We recognize that exigent circumstances are a necessary requisite of one category of warrantless searches \u2014 specifically, warrantless searches based upon probable cause to search. See State v. Allen, 282 N.C. 503, 194 S.E. 2d 9 (1972). However, the warrantless search in the case sub judice is based upon probable cause to arrest and is justified, as explained below, as \u201cincident to arrest.\u201d This latter class of warrantless searches does not require for its justification the presence of exigent circumstances. See generally United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L.Ed. 653 (1950); State v. Allen, supra. Even so, we note that the trial court found as fact that defendant might leave the area if he was not apprehended and searched, and that the \u201cexigency\u201d of the situation prevented the officers from first obtaining an arrest warrant or a search warrant. On the evidence presented at voir dire, we cannot hold as a matter of law that these findings were unreasonable.\nIn the third contention directed to the legality of the war-rantless search, defendant asserts that the search in the parking lot occurred before he was arrested and therefore, was not justified as incident to an arrest. This contention is also without merit. There is an abundance of authority in this State in which the courts, under similar facts, have upheld the finding of a prior lawful arrest \u2014 thereby justifying the warrantless search as \u201cincident\u201d thereto \u2014 notwithstanding the absence of a formal declaration of arrest prior to the search and the presence of testimony by an officer that defendant was not under arrest at the time in question. State v. Jackson, 280 N.C. 122, 185 S.E. 2d 202 (1971); State v. Tippett, 270 N.C. 588, 155 S.E. 2d 269 (1967); State v. Ausborn, 26 N.C. App. 481, 216 S.E. 2d 396 (1975); State v. Harris, 9 N.C. App. 649, 177 S.E. 2d 445 (1970). Without diminishing in any way the strength of these decisions, we rely in this case on what we believe to be a more appropriate basis for supporting this search as \u201cincident to an arrest.\u201d\nWe hold that where a search of a suspect\u2019s person occurs before instead of after formal arrest, such search can be equally justified as \u201cincident to the arrest\u201d provided probable cause to arrest existed prior to the search and it is clear that the evidence seized was in no way necessary to establish the probable cause. If an officer has probable cause to arrest a suspect and as incident to that arrest would be entitled to make a reasonable search of his person, we see no value in a rule which invalidates the search merely because it precedes actual arrest. The justification for the search incident to arrest is the need for immediate action to protect the arresting officer from the use of weapons and to prevent destruction of evidence of the crime. These considerations are rendered no less important by the postponement of the arrest.\nAlthough no decision of a North Carolina court has come to our attention which passes upon or considers the rule which we now announce, we find ample support for this holding in relevant decisions of the federal courts and courts of other jurisdictions. United States v. Riggs, 474 F. 2d 699 (2d Cir. 1973); United States v. Brown, 150 U.S. App. D.C. 113, 463 F. 2d 949 (1972); United States v. Skinner, 412 F. 2d 98 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 967, 90 S.Ct. 448, 24 L. Ed. 2d 433 (1969); Bailey v. United States, 128 U.S. App. D.C. 354, 398 F. 2d 305 (1967); Pendergraft v. Cook, 323 F. Supp. 967 (S.D. Miss. 1971); see United States v. Gorman, 355 F. 2d 151 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1024, 86 S.Ct. 1962, 16 L.Ed. 2d 1027 (1966); People v. Simon, 45 Cal. 2d 645, 290 P. 2d 531 (1955); Lavato v. People, 159 Colo. 223, 411 P. 2d 328 (1966); Cannon v. State, 235 Md. 133, 200 A. 2d 919 (1964). In all of these decisions, the controlling factor in determining the validity of the search was the existence of probable cause to arrest the suspect prior to the search. We have stated hereinbefore that, in the case at bar, Agent Surratt had probable cause to arrest defendant before he began to search him.\nAccordingly, we hold that the search of defendant which produced the pistol, bullets, and money was lawful. It follows that defendant\u2019s arrest for carrying a concealed weapon was lawful as was his detention and subsequent arrest for possession of heroin at the police station. The heroin discovered at the police station was therefore admissible in evidence.\nWe find defendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error to be without merit. In the trial we find\nNo error.\nJudges Parker and Arnold concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "A ttorney General Edmisten, by Associate A ttorney Patricia PL. Wagner, for the State.", "Kornegay, Bruce <6 Rice, P.A., by Robert T. Rice, for the defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOE LOUIS WOOTEN\nNo. 778SC286\n(Filed 21 September 1977)\n1. Arrest and Bail \u00a7 3.1\u2014 probable cause for arrest \u2014 reliability of informant\nTrial court\u2019s finding that a confidential informant who furnished information necessary to establish probable cause for defendant\u2019s arrest was reliable was supported by an SBI agent\u2019s voir dire testimony that information received from the informant had always been reliable and had led to several arrests and one conviction, although it had at other times not resulted in arrests.\n2. Arrest and Bail \u00a7 3.4\u2014 warrantless arrest and search \u2014 felony in officer\u2019s pres- . ence \u2014 confidential informant\nOfficers had probable cause to believe that defendant was committing a felony in their presence by possessing heroin, and the warrantless arrest and search of defendant was lawful, where a confidential informant told officers that he saw defendant at a certain location in the possession of tinfoil packets represented to contain heroin and described defendant and the clothing he was wearing, and officers observed the defendant as described at the named location.\n3. Searches and Seizures \u00a7T\u2014 warrantless search incident to arrest \u2014 exigent circumstances\n\u201cExigent circumstances\u201d are not necessary to justify a search without a warrant which is incident to a valid arrest based on probable cause.\n4. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 1\u2014 search before formal arrest \u2014 search incident to arrest\nA search of a suspect\u2019s person before formal arrest is incident to the arrest when probable cause to arrest existed prior to the search and it is clear that evidence seized was in no way necessary to establish probable cause.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Peel, Judge. Judgment entered 19 November 1976 in Superior Court, WAYNE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 August 1977.\nThe defendant was charged in a bill of indictment with feloniously possessing a controlled substance, heroin, in violation of the North Carolina Controlled Substances Act. He pleaded not guilty and a jury found him guilty as charged. From judgment imposing a prison sentence of not less than two nor more than three years, defendant appealed.\nA ttorney General Edmisten, by Associate A ttorney Patricia PL. Wagner, for the State.\nKornegay, Bruce <6 Rice, P.A., by Robert T. Rice, for the defendant." }, "file_name": "0085-01", "first_page_order": 113, "last_page_order": 118 }