{
  "id": 8554941,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RONALD LEE HAMLIN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hamlin",
  "decision_date": "1978-06-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 774SC1043",
  "first_page": "605",
  "last_page": "608",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "36 N.C. App. 605"
    }
  ],
  "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": "182 S.E. 2d 364",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "367"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 N.C. 307",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566862
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "311"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/279/0307-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "378 U.S. 108",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6165107
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/378/0108-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 S.Ct. 725",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "case_ids": [
        6163485,
        6163782
      ],
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/362/0257-01",
        "/us/362/0309-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "362 U.S. 257",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6163485
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/362/0257-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 S.E. 2d 885",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 N.C. 728",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572456,
        8572556,
        8572493,
        8572526,
        8572469
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/279/0728-01",
        "/nc/279/0728-05",
        "/nc/279/0728-03",
        "/nc/279/0728-04",
        "/nc/279/0728-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 S.E. 2d 820",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 487",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550571
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/12/0487-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 S.E. 2d 67",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 N.C. App. 200",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548053
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/14/0200-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "219 S.E. 2d 549",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 545",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554917
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/27/0545-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 S.E. 2d 325",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 N.C. 96",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560453,
        8560492,
        8560532,
        8560470,
        8560508
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/290/0096-01",
        "/nc/290/0096-03",
        "/nc/290/0096-05",
        "/nc/290/0096-02",
        "/nc/290/0096-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 S.E. 2d 569",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 N.C. App. 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554496
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/29/0131-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 S.E. 2d 752",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 N.C. 125",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562900
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/282/0125-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 S.Ct. 157",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 L.Ed. 2d 114",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "414 U.S. 874",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11762922,
        11762669,
        11763119,
        11762751,
        11762997,
        11762845,
        11763196,
        11762557,
        11762495
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/414/0874-06",
        "/us/414/0874-03",
        "/us/414/0874-08",
        "/us/414/0874-04",
        "/us/414/0874-07",
        "/us/414/0874-05",
        "/us/414/0874-09",
        "/us/414/0874-02",
        "/us/414/0874-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 755",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "765"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 N.C. 561",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561152
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "576"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/278/0561-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 417,
    "char_count": 6680,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.846,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.315005732208552e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3884662773775614
    },
    "sha256": "b64967bb73a4939da8bcf9ba79c8047b5e45a5c5ec071c45997f54ceed05d694",
    "simhash": "1:8bc560fada607253",
    "word_count": 1080
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:02:41.791978+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RONALD LEE HAMLIN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nThe State contends that the trial court erroneously suppressed evidence obtained under the search warrant. The question presented by this appeal is whether the affidavit supplied sufficient facts and circumstances from which a magistrate could find probable cause to issue a search warrant. We hold that it did.\nIn reviewing the magistrate\u2019s determination of probable cause, we are limited in the scope of our examination by G.S. 15A-245(a). Since we are unable to find in the record other facts recorded contemporaneously with the affidavit, our examination is confined to the affidavit of Officer J. S. Phillips who signed the following statement:\n\u201cThe applicant swears to the following facts to establish probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant: The Special Operations Division has received information that Phencyclidine (PCP) is being sold at said place. On September 9, 1977 an operative working under supervision of Special Operations Agents Phillips and Toth, made a controlled purchase of PCP from Ron Hamlin at said place. Said purchase was controlled by Special Operations Agents Phillips and Toth by watching said operative go in and come out of said place. SOD Agent Phillips took custody of the purchased evidence. Said phencyclicine is in the form of pink tablets.\u201d\nGenerally, in an application for a search warrant, the affidavit is deemed sufficient\n\u201c[IJf it supplies reasonable cause to believe that the proposed search for evidence of the commission of the designated criminal offense will reveal the presence upon the described premises of the objects sought and that they will aid in the apprehension or conviction of the offender.\u201d State v. Vestal, 278 N.C. 561, 576, 180 S.E. 2d 755, 765 (1971), cert. denied sub nom Vestal v. North Carolina, 414 U.S. 874, 38 L.Ed. 2d 114, 94 S.Ct. 157 (1973).\nNorth Carolina cases which deal with the issue of the sufficiency of an affidavit to support a search warrant have been reviewed. See, e.g. State v. Campbell, 282 N.C. 125, 191 S.E. 2d 752 (1972); State v. Oldfield, 29 N.C. App. 131, 223 S.E. 2d 569, cert. denied 290 N.C. 96, 225 S.E. 2d 325 (1976); State v. English, 27 N.C. App. 545, 219 S.E. 2d 549 (1975); State v. Foye, 14 N.C. App. 200, 188 S.E. 2d 67 (1972); State v. Flowers, 12 N.C. App. 487, 183 S.E. 2d 820, cert. denied 279 N.C. 728, 184 S.E. 2d 885 (1971). Most of these cases deal with search warrants which were issued upon affidavits in which information was obtained from confidential informants. Such search warrants are generally attacked on the ground that there are insufficient statements of underlying circumstances to justify a finding that the informant is reliable and that probable cause exists. In the present case, however, the initial hearsay statement in the affidavit, that the Special Operations Division (SOD) had received information of the sale of PCP, is not the focal point of the sworn statement. Information contained in the officer\u2019s affidavit describes a controlled purchase at the premises to be searched. Two SOD officers observed the operative go into the place and come out with PCP of which one of the officers took custody.\nDefendant moved to suppress evidence obtained from the search on the grounds that the search warrant was invalid in that the affidavit contained therein was \u201cinsufficient for the finding of probable cause for the issuance of . . . [the] search warrant.\u201d That is defendant\u2019s sole argument on this appeal. We find no significance in defendant\u2019s argument that the affiant made two conclusory statements (\u201cOn September 9, 1977, an operative . . . made a controlled purchase of PCP from Ron Hamlin at said place.\u201d and \u201cSaid Phencyclidine is in the form of pink tablets.\u201d). Furthermore, although defendant argues that the affiant made an unsupported hearsay statement, he concedes that such affidavits may be based on hearsay information. Jones v. U.S., 362 U.S. 257, 4 L.Ed. 2d 697, 80 S.Ct. 725 (1960). He contends, nevertheless, that, under Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 12 L.Ed. 2d 723, 84 S.Ct. 1509 (1964), the magistrate must be informed of some of the circumstances underlying the hearsay so that he may determine that the source of the hearsay is reliable. But in the instant case the affidavit did not stop with the hearsay statement that \u201cThe Special Operations Division has received information that Phencyclidine (PCP) is being sold at said place.\u201d The affiant further detailed the controlled purchase which was made on the same day the warrant was issued.\nIn view of our case law and close analysis of the affidavit with which we are presented, we conclude that the affidavit supplied a \u201creasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in believing the accused to be guilty. . . .\u201d State v. Harris, 279 N.C. 307, 311, 182 S.E. 2d 364, 367 (1971).\nThe trial court\u2019s order suppressing evidence was error and, the case is\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges Morris and Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General James Wallace, Jr., for the State.",
      "Bailey and Raynor, by Edward G. Bailey, for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RONALD LEE HAMLIN\nNo. 774SC1043\n(Filed 6 June 1978)\nSearches and Seizures \u00a7 23\u2014 affidavit supporting search warrant \u2014sufficiency\nAn officer\u2019s affidavit supplied sufficient facts and circumstances from which a magistrate could find probable cause to issue a search warrant where the affidavit stated that officers had received information that phencyclidine was being sold at a certain place; officers set up a controlled purchase from defendant; officers watched their operative go in and come out of the named place; and the officers took possession of the purchased phencyclidine.\nAPPEAL by the State of North Carolina from Browning, Judge. Judgment entered 17 November 1977, in Superior Court, ONSLOW County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 April 1978.\nDefendant was charged upon a proper bill of indictment with the felonious manufacture of marijuana and the felonious possession with intent to manufacture, sell, and deliver marijuana, a controlled substance. The charges arose as a result of the seizure of marijuana plants found during a search conducted under a search warrant issued to officers of the Jacksonville Police Department. Before trial, the defendant, through his attorney, moved to suppress the fruits of the search on the grounds that the affidavit portion of the search warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause. The court allowed defendant\u2019s motion and issued an order suppressing the evidence obtained by the search. The State appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General James Wallace, Jr., for the State.\nBailey and Raynor, by Edward G. Bailey, for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0605-01",
  "first_page_order": 633,
  "last_page_order": 636
}
