{ "id": 8549499, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT MURRAY VERNON", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Vernon", "decision_date": "1980-03-04", "docket_number": "No. 7926SC696", "first_page": "486", "last_page": "490", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "45 N.C. App. 486" } ], "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": "255 S.E. 2d 294", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "41 N.C. App. 380", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549474 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/41/0380-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 S.Ct. 2034", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 L.Ed. 2d 579", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "69 L.Ed. 2d 543", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1925, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "551" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "267 U.S. 132", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6137701 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1925, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "153" }, { "page": "285" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/267/0132-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 S.Ct. 26", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "30 L.Ed. 2d 120", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "404 U.S. 874", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6348970, 6349347, 6349126 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/404/0874-01", "/us/404/0874-03", "/us/404/0874-02" ] }, { "cite": "403 U.S. 443", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12027286 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "460" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/403/0443-01" ] }, { "cite": "254 S.E. 2d 590", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "254 S.E. 2d 586", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "297 N.C. 216", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568424 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/297/0216-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 480, "char_count": 8686, "ocr_confidence": 0.831, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.788388613430682e-08, "percentile": 0.4959866386032545 }, "sha256": "9b1ad713f90a82d8d08ffb78696e5aee79e9082f98dfe2454d66cdf29a82eed9", "simhash": "1:9f9114b606c48e22", "word_count": 1423 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:38.339487+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges CLARK and ERWIN concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT MURRAY VERNON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nThe trial court upheld the search of the Corvette defendant had driven to the motel as a valid inventory search. The recent decision of our Supreme Court in State v. Phifer, 297 N.C. 216, 254 S.E. 2d 586 (1979), however, reveals that the search cannot be upheld on that ground. Here, as in Phifer, the officer who searched the defendant\u2019s car completely failed to follow the standard procedures for towing and inventory established by the Charlotte Police Department. These procedures provide in part:\nB. Citizens should be allowed to make disposition of their vehicles when:\n1. The driver or owner is on the scene.\n2. In the officer\u2019s judgment the subject is capable of making such disposition.\n3. Said disposition does not interfere with the case or create a traffic problem.\nOfficer Cochran, who searched defendant\u2019s car, testified at trial that defendant was present and competent to make a decision about the disposition of the car; that the car was presenting no traffic hazard, parked as it was in the Holiday Inn parking lot; and that towing the car was in no way necessary to the arrests for the sale of MDA. Cochran admitted that his actions with regard to defendant\u2019s vehicle were contrary to police department policy. Further, he testified that he decided to tow the Corvette \u201cso it would not be damaged.\u201d Nowhere in the Charlotte Police Department statement of procedures for towing and inventory does this appear as a ground upon which an officer may decide to tow a vehicle. There is no evidence of any other circumstances which would bring the inventory and towing of this vehicle within the police department procedures.\nThe court in Phifer, having found the search there invalid as an inventory search, upheld it on the basis that there was probable cause to search. We find that in the present case the necessary probable cause and exigent circumstances to justify the search do not appear. Charles Frank Pridgen went to the Holiday Inn to make a prearranged sale of MDA. He arrived in a Chevelle, followed by defendant and another man in a Corvette. Defendant remained standing by the Corvette, while Pridgen went into the motel and completed the prearranged sale. He indicated during the sale that defendant was his bodyguard. All three men were arrested immediately after Pridgen left the motel room. Upon these facts, no probable cause appears for a search of defendant\u2019s car. \u201cProbable cause . . . may be defined as a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to lead a man of prudence and caution to believe defendant\u2019s car contained contraband of some sort.\u201d State v. Phifer, supra at 225, 254 S.E. 2d 590. At the time of the search, the prearranged drug sale, in which defendant participated at most as a lookout or bodyguard, had been completed. Pridgen, the seller, had not arrived at the scene in defendant\u2019s car. There is no evidence that the officer who conducted the search had knowledge of Pridgen\u2019s offer to sell Clark marijuana in addition to the MDA. Viewing the totality of circumstances here we cannot say that a prudent and cautious person would believe contraband would be found in defendant\u2019s car at the time it was searched by Officer Cochran.\nFurthermore, if probable cause had existed, we find no exigent circumstances which would justify a warrantless search. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 29 L.Ed. 2d 564, 91 S.Ct. 2022, reh. denied 404 U.S. 874, 30 L.Ed. 2d 120, 92 S.Ct. 26 (1971). Prior to the search, defendant and his companions had been placed under arrest. The situation was not one where it was \u201c \u2018not practicable to secure a warrant, because the vehicle [could] be quickly moved out of the locality.\u2019 \u201d Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153, 69 L.Ed. 2d 543, 551, 45 S.Ct. 280, 285 (1925), quoted in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra at 460, 29 L.Ed. 2d 579, 91 S.Ct. 2034.\nIt is well-established that warrantless searches are per se unreasonable unless they fall within a specific exception. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra. Neither the inventory search exception nor the exception for probable cause plus exigent circumstances applies here. Accordingly, the marijuana found in defendant\u2019s car was the fruit of an illegal search and should have been suppressed. State v. Chambers, 41 N.C. App. 380, 255 S.E. 2d 294 (1979), relied upon by the State, is distinguishable upon its facts.\nFor the reversible error committed by the court in denying his motion to suppress, in Case # 78CR133978, defendant is entitled to a\nNew trial.\nJudges CLARK and ERWIN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ARNOLD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Sarah C. Young, for the State.", "Levine, Goodman and Pawlowski, by Paul L. Pawlowski, for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT MURRAY VERNON\nNo. 7926SC696\n(Filed 4 March 1980)\nSearches and Seizures \u00a7 11\u2014 inventory search of car \u2014 police procedures not followed \u2014 no probable cause to search\nAn officer who searched defendant\u2019s car completely failed to follow the standard procedures for towing and inventory established by the Charlotte Police Department, and the search therefore could not be upheld as a valid inventory search; nor were there probable cause and exigent circumstances to search the vehicle where the officer had no reason to believe that contraband would be found in the car of defendant, who allegedly served as a bodyguard for a person who made a prearranged drug sale to officers, and, even if probable cause had existed, officers could have obtained a warrant before searching the car, since the owner had been placed under arrest and the car was parked in a motel parking lot.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Allen (C. W.), Judge. Judgment entered 5 April 1979 in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 January 1980.\nDefendant was indicted for possession of marijuana with intent to sell and deliver (Case # 78CR133978), possession of more than one ounce of marijuana (Case # 78CR133977), felonious sale and delivery of 3, 4-Methylenedioxy Amphetamine (Case # 78CR133976), and conspiring to possess and possession of 3, 4-Methylenedioxy Amphetamine with intent to sell and deliver (Case # 78CR11777). He was found not guilty on the 3, 4-Methylenedioxy Amphetamine charges and guilty on the charges relating to marijuana. The trial court arrested judgment in Case # 78CR133977, and in Case # 78CR133978, possession of marijuana with intent to sell and deliver, sentenced the defendant to 2-5 years. This appeal relates only to Case # 78CR133978 (possession of marijuana).\nPrior to trial defendant moved to suppress evidence, and a voir dire hearing was held. Evidence was presented that on 6 September 1978, Officer Clark of the SBI arranged to meet one Charles Frank Pridgen at a Charlotte Holiday Inn, where Pridgen would sell to Clark 3, 4-Methylenedioxy Amphetamine (MDA) for $13,300. Clark saw Pridgen arrive at the motel in a dark green Chevelle, followed immediately by a new orange Corvette driven by defendant and with one Emory Lifsey in the passenger seat. Pridgen came into Clark\u2019s room and sold him MDA. Lifsey waited outside Clark\u2019s room on the balcony, and defendant remained standing beside the Corvette. Clark asked Pridgen who the two others were and Pridgen said they were his bodyguards. He asked whether Clark were interested in purchasing any Colum-bian marijuana, and Clark said no. When Pridgen left, Clark advised other law enforcement officers to arrest Pridgen, Lifsey and defendant.\nAll three men were arrested in the motel parking lot. Officer Cochran of the Charlotte Police arrested . defendant, and he testified, \u201cAfter I arrested Mr. Vernon, I decided to tow the Corvette to the police station because I didn\u2019t want to be responsible for it being damaged for being left out there.\u201d Cochran then \u201cstarted inventorying\u201d the car, and found in the passenger compartment a large cloth bag containing marijuana. Defendant asked that the Corvette not be towed because of the damage a wrecker might do, so Cochran drove it to the police department. The car was never actually towed or stored. Pridgen\u2019s Chevelle was not towed because it was \u201cbattered up\u201d and the officers felt there would be no danger in leaving it there.\nDefendant\u2019s motion to suppress was denied, the court having determined that Office Cochran had discovered the marijuana pursuant to a valid inventory search. The evidence presented by the State before the jury was substantially the same as that given on voir dire. Defendant presented no evidence. Verdicts were returned as set out above, and defendant appeals from his conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to sell and deliver.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Sarah C. Young, for the State.\nLevine, Goodman and Pawlowski, by Paul L. Pawlowski, for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0486-01", "first_page_order": 514, "last_page_order": 518 }