{ "id": 8550280, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KIRKWOOD PRESTON KING", "name_abbreviation": "State v. King", "decision_date": "1979-11-20", "docket_number": "No. 7929SC542", "first_page": "31", "last_page": "34", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "44 N.C. App. 31" } ], "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": "287 U.S. 206", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 369566 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1932, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/287/0206-01" ] }, { "cite": "393 U.S. 410", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11317375 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/393/0410-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 S.Ct. 2082", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 L.Ed. 2d 734", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "403 U.S. 573", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12027357 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "579" }, { "page": "731" }, { "page": "2079-80" }, { "page": "583-84" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/403/0573-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 S.Ct. 725", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "case_ids": [ 6163485, 6163782 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1960, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "736" } ], "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": 3, "year": 1960, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "708" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/362/0257-01" ] }, { "cite": "378 U.S. 108", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6165107 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "114-15" }, { "page": "729" }, { "page": "1514" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/378/0108-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 476, "char_count": 8413, "ocr_confidence": 0.827, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.6273012324381846e-07, "percentile": 0.6883123301783232 }, "sha256": "7039886929abbf272b68b21ed03419df814c2edbb0a9db39dc47c66ae87904f0", "simhash": "1:00c828e29ae5bed3", "word_count": 1388 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:31.887789+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges WEBB and WELLS concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KIRKWOOD PRESTON KING" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nThe sole issue on this appeal is whether the court erred in allowing into evidence the objects seized in the search of defendant\u2019s residence. Defendant argues that they were inadmissible because the application underlying the search warrant was insufficient, both for failure to provide information to establish the reliability and credibility of the informants and for the staleness of the information it contained.\nDeputy Sheriff Rickman\u2019s application of 24 August 1978 for a warrant to search defendant\u2019s residence contained the following allegations to establish probable cause: (1) A confidential informant, who had in the last two months given reliable information leading to a felony arrest, told Rickman on 17 July 1978 that the informant had been present at defendant\u2019s house in early July 1978 when a Gary Leatherwood bought controlled substances from defendant. (2) (a) On 29 July 1978, Mike and Gail Lawson told Rickman that David Hunnicutt, \u201ca drug user,\u201d had told them he knew a fellow named Kirk who lived in Saluda, North Carolina, and who had 50 pounds of marijuana for sale in his house, (b) The Lawsons were present on 29 July when Hunnicutt called defendant and discussed a sale of Valium and speed. (3) (a) On 3 August 1978 Tommy Guin told Rickman that on 12 July 1978 he and Hun-nicutt went to defendant\u2019s house, where he smoked marijuana defendant gave him and bought Valium tablets from defendant, (b) Hunnicutt wanted to buy 30 Valium tablets but didn\u2019t have the money. (4) Within the last two weeks, Rickman and other officers had seen a great many cars come to defendant\u2019s premises and stay a short while. (5) (a) Within the hour before Rickman applied for the search warrant, he saw many cars parked near defendant\u2019s residence and heard music coming from inside, (b) Rickman had received \u201cconfidential and reliable\u201d information that defendant had drug parties at these premises.\nThe United States Supreme Court indicated in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114-15, 12 L.Ed. 2d 723, 729, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 1514 (1964), that an affidavit supporting an application for a search warrant must inform the magistrate of \u201csome of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the [contraband was] where he claimed [it was], and some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant, whose identity need not be disclosed, [cite omitted] was \u2018credible\u2019 or his information \u2018reliable.\u2019 \u201d The court referred to the affidavit found sufficient in Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 4 L.Ed. 2d 697, 80 S.Ct. 725 (1960), as an example. Defendant in the present case argues that none of the elements of Rickman\u2019s application meets the Aguilar test.\nThe information in allegation (1) of the application is sufficient to establish probable cause, at least in \u201cearly July 1978.\u201d (The \u201cstaleness\u201d issue will be discussed later.) The informant personally observed the criminal activity, see United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 579, 29 L.Ed. 2d 723, 731, 91 S.Ct. 2075, 2079-80 (1971), and he had furnished reliable information to Rickman in the past. See Jones v. United States, supra at 271, 4 L.Ed. 2d at 708, 80 S.Ct. at 736. Allegation (3)(a) is also found sufficient, at least on 12 July, since it relates underlying circumstances discovered by the informant\u2019s personal observation, and since the information about drug buys from defendant was against the informant\u2019s penal interest. G.S. 90-92(a)7; G.S. 90-95(a)(3) and (d)(2); Physician\u2019s Desk Reference 1416 (32d ed. 1978); see United States v. Harris, supra at 583-84, 29 L.Ed. 2d 734, 91 S.Ct. 2082. The sufficiency of allegation 2(b), standing alone, might be questionable, but even if insufficient it may be considered in the magistrate\u2019s determination. Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 21 L.Ed. 2d 637, 89 S.Ct. 584 (1969).\nThe test for \u201cstaleness\u201d of information underlying a search warrant is whether the facts indicate probable cause at the time the warrant issues. Sgro v. United States, 287 U.S. 206, 77 L.Ed. 260, 53 S.Ct. 138 (1932). While allegations (1) and (3), describing as they do defendant\u2019s activities \u201cin early July\u201d and \u201con 12 July\u201d might not support the issuance of a warrant on 24 August, when allegations (1), (2)(b), and (3) are considered together, they indicate on defendant\u2019s part a pattern of drug sales extending over some weeks and dealing with various controlled substances. Allegation (4), considered in conjunction with this pattern, allows the reasonable inference that the drug sales continued into the two weeks prior to the issuance of the warrant. The United States Supreme Court in United States v. Harris, supra, upheld a warrant where the application indicated that an informant had purchased illicit whiskey from defendant at his residence \u201cwithin the past two weeks,\u201d saying \u201chere the informant\u2019s admission that over a long period and currently he had been buying illicit liquor on certain premises, itself and without more, implicated that property and furnished probable cause to search.\u201d Id. at 584, 29 L.Ed. 2d 734, 91 S.Ct. 2082. Although the information in allegation (4) in the present case is not as specific as that in Harris, the Harris reasoning applies to the case now before us. We hold that Rickman\u2019s application provided adequate support for the magistrate\u2019s finding of probable cause, and that in the admission into evidence of the fruits of the search there was\nNo error.\nJudges WEBB and WELLS concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ARNOLD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General Charles J. Murray, for the State.", "Ladson F. Hart for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KIRKWOOD PRESTON KING\nNo. 7929SC542\n(Filed 20 November 1979)\nSearches and Seizures \u00a7 24\u2014 sufficiency of affidavit to obtain search warrant\u2014 staleness of information\nAn officer\u2019s affidavit was sufficient to support a finding of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant to search defendant\u2019s residence for controlled substances on 24 August 1978 where it contained allegations that (1) a confidential informant, who in the last two months had given reliable information for a felony arrest, told the officer on 17 July 1978 that the informant was present in defendant\u2019s house in early July 1978 when a named person bought controlled substances from defendant; (2) two persons told the officer they were present on 29 July 1978 when a \u201cdrug user\u201d called defendant and discussed a sale of Valium and speed; (3) on 3 August 1978 another person told the officer that he and the \u201cdrug user\u201d went to defendant\u2019s house on 12 July where he smoked marijuana defendant gave him and bought Valium tablets from defendant; and (4) within the last two weeks the officer had seen a great many cars come to defendant\u2019s premises and stay a short while, since the allegations of the affidavit established probable cause \u201con 12 July\u201d and \u201cin early July,\u201d and the allegations, when considered together, indicated a pattern of drug sales by defendant extending over some weeks and continuing into the two weeks prior to issuance of the warrant.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Ferrell, Judge. Judgment entered 25 January 1979 in Superior Court, POLK County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 October 1979.\nDefendant was indicted for possession of cocaine with intent to sell and deliver. Prior to trial defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant, and after a hearing this motion was denied.\nAt trial, officers who participated in the search of defendant\u2019s residence testified that they found there and seized a box containing \u201ca spoon on a necklace that had green corroded looking substance on it,\u201d a small plastic bag with a small amount of white powder in it, a \u201cscreen type thing,\u201d and \u201ca small book \u2014 a Little Webster\u201d; a small brownish plastic bottle containing a white powder substance; a Penn Tennis Ball cannister inside a glass fruit jar in a hollowed out stump in the backyard, the can-nister containing \u201csome small cellophane packs containing a powder, a crystalline material,\u201d and some rice at the bottom of the can; and a scale with a pan missing from it. The white powder in the objects seized was found by State Bureau of Investigation chemists to be cocaine.\nDefendant presented no evidence. He was found guilty of possession of cocaine with intent to sell and deliver and sentenced to five to seven years. He appeals.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General Charles J. Murray, for the State.\nLadson F. Hart for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0031-01", "first_page_order": 59, "last_page_order": 62 }