{ "id": 2676739, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM R. ELLIS, JR.", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ellis", "decision_date": "1980-12-16", "docket_number": "No. 808SC504", "first_page": "181", "last_page": "184", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "50 N.C. App. 181" } ], "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": "246 S.E. 2d 34", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "37 N.C. App. 416", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553105 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/37/0416-01" ] }, { "cite": "245 S.E. 2d 778", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "295 N.C. 261", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562565, 8562540, 8562521, 8562619, 8562588 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/295/0261-03", "/nc/295/0261-02", "/nc/295/0261-01", "/nc/295/0261-05", "/nc/295/0261-04" ] }, { "cite": "243 S.E. 2d 189", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "36 N.C. App. 114", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8551403 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/36/0114-01" ] }, { "cite": "265 S.E. 2d 172", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 N.C. 142", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559906 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/300/0142-01" ] }, { "cite": "260 S.E. 2d 650", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "44 N.C. App. 141", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8551284 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/44/0141-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 L.Ed.2d 63", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "386 U.S. 300", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6174244 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/386/0300-01" ] }, { "cite": "211 S.E. 2d 207", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "211" }, { "page": "211" }, { "page": "211" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 387", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566890 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "392-393" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0387-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 423, "char_count": 7050, "ocr_confidence": 0.932, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.243821620283089e-08, "percentile": 0.43210067459531426 }, "sha256": "c63bee32de28e04e25259ca0ca52be45d9160c027752114e5406fa9187f7131b", "simhash": "1:2045a1dca67e961f", "word_count": 1124 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:39:05.008611+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges MARTIN (Harry C.) and HILL concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM R. ELLIS, JR." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ARNOLD Judge.\nThis case presents the recurrent question of whether the court erred in refusing to allow defendant to ask questions concerning the identity of the informant. Defendant\u2019s position is that G.S. 15A-978(b) entitled him to this information. We conclude differently, however.\nAs stated in State v. Ketchie, 286 N.C. 387, at 392-393, 211 S.E. 2d 207 at 211 (1975), \u201cDefendant has made no defense on the merits and does not contend that the informant participated in or witnessed the alleged crime. Therefore, he has no constitutional right to discover the name of the informant. (Citations omitted.) As stated by the Court in McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 18 L.Ed.2d 63 (1967): \u2018Nothing in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state court judge in every such hearing to assume the arresting officers are committing perjury.\u2019 \u201d\nWhile G.S. 15A-978 (b) requires disclosure of an informant\u2019s identity in some situations, this case falls under exception number two provided in the statute: \u201c(2) There is corroboration of the informant\u2019s existence independent of the testimony in question.\u201d Deputy Odom testified that he listened to both telephone conversations between the informant and Officer Goodman. This was sufficient corroboration of Deputy Goodman\u2019s testimony relating to the informant. See, State v. Collins, 44 N.C. App. 141, 260 S.E. 2d 650, aff\u2019d 300 N.C. 142, 265 S.E. 2d 172 (1980); State v. Bunn, 36 N.C. App. 114, 243 S.E. 2d 189, cert. denied 295 N.C. 261, 245 S.E. 2d 778 (1978).\nDefendant also argues that the court should have allowed his motion to suppress articles obtained in the search of the car, vigorously contending that the warrantless search of the vehicle was unconstitutional. We disagree.\nThe warrantless search of defendant\u2019s vehicle was lawful and falls within the decision of this Court in State v. Tickle, 37 N.C. App. 416, 246 S.E. 2d 34 (1978), and our Supreme Court, in State v. Ketchie, supra. \u201cThe warrantless arrest, search and seizure [are].. . lawful\u201d even though the informant does not provide the underlying circumstances sufficient to constitute probable cause upon which to issue a search warrant. State v. Ketchie, supra, at 392, 211 S.E. 2d at 211. \u201c[P]robable cause to arrest and search defendant existed on the basis of the minute particularity with which the informant described defendant and the physical and independent verification of this description\u201d by the officer. Id. at 393, 211 S.E. 2d at 211.\nPrior to the search, in the case sub judice, the officers corroborated the informant\u2019s tip to the last detail through their observation of the following: (1) defendant arrived at Charles B. Aycock school between 7:45 and 8:00 a.m., (2) defendant was driving a red and white Ford pickup truck with a camper on the back, license number AJ-9936| (3) defendant, who was known to the officers, matched the informant\u2019s description and was the registered owner of the vehicle with the license number supplied by the informant. Deputy Goodman testitifed at the hearing that the confidential informant was known to him and had proven reliable on prior occasions with information concerning drug distribution. Together, all these factors establish that the officers had probable cause to arrest defendant and search his vehicle. The judge\u2019s ruling on defendant\u2019s motion to suppress is upheld.\nDefendant\u2019s motions were properly denied and judgment lawfully entered upon defendant\u2019s plea of guilty.\nAffirmed.\nJudges MARTIN (Harry C.) and HILL concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ARNOLD Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Dennis P. Myers, for the State.", "Hulse & Hulse, by Donald M. Wright, for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM R. ELLIS, JR.\nNo. 808SC504\n(Filed 16 December 1980)\n1. Constitutional Law\u00a7 67\u2014 identity of informant \u2014 questions notpermitted \u2014 no error\nThe trial court did not err in refusing to allow defendant, who was charged with possession of marijuana and methaqualone, to ask questions concerning the identity of a confidential informant whose tip led to defendant\u2019s arrest where an officer\u2019s testimony that he listened to telephone conversations between the informant and another officer provided sufficient corroboration of the informant\u2019s existence independent of the testimony in question. G.S. 15A-978(b)(2).\n2. Searches and Seizures \u00a7 11\u2014 warrantless search of vehicle \u2014 no unconstitutional search\nThere was no merit to defendant\u2019s contention that a warrantless search of his vehicle was unconstitutional since, prior to the search, the officers corroborated an informant\u2019s tip to the last detail through their own observations, and one of the officers testified that the confidential informant was known to him and had proven reliable on prior occasions with information concerning drug distribution.\nAppeal by defendant from Peel, Judge. Judgment entered 11 February 1980 in Superior Court, WAYNE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 October 1980.\nDefendant was indicted on the charges of possession of greater than one ounce of marijuana with the intent to manufacture, sell and deliver, possession of methaqualone - a Schedule II substance, and keeping and maintaining a motor vehicle for use in the distribution of controlled substances. Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress the evidence found pursuant to a warrantless search of his vehicle was denied prior to trial. Thereafter, defendant pled guilty, as a result of a plea bargain with the district attorney, to felony possession of marijuana with the intent to sell and maintaining a motor vehicle for purposes of selling controlled substances. Defendant was sentenced to seven years in prison.\nAt the hearing on defendant\u2019s motion to suppress, evidence was presented that William C. Goodman, Jr., a Wayne County deputy sheriff, received a tip from a confidential informant that defendant Ellis was distributing drugs at Charles B. Aycock school. Deputy Goodman testified that the informant was known to him and had proven reliable in the past in similar situations involving drug distribution. The informant, according to Officer Goodman stated that the defendant had been selling drugs at the school for some time. A subsequent call from the informant to Deputy Goodman, to which Deputy Odom listened, established that defendant would arrive at the school between 7:45 and 8:00 a.m. driving a red and white Ford pickup truck with a camper on the back, and have in his possession one pound of marijuana concealed in a green ammunition can under the seat of the truck. The officer testified that when he and three other deputies approached defendant at the school, he saw a cigar box lying on the front seat of the truck, a green ammunition can on the floor and a plastic bag on the dash. The officers arrested the defendant and seized the containers which held marijuana and methaqualone.\nDefendant appeals from the judge\u2019s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence found in the truck and the signing and entry of the judgment based on defendant\u2019s guilty plea.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Dennis P. Myers, for the State.\nHulse & Hulse, by Donald M. Wright, for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0181-01", "first_page_order": 207, "last_page_order": 210 }