{ "id": 8562197, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN RICHARD NEWSOM", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Newsom", "decision_date": "1973-12-12", "docket_number": "No. 39", "first_page": "412", "last_page": "416", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "284 N.C. 412" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "352 F. Supp. 180", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 3556426 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/352/0180-01" ] }, { "cite": "267 A. 2d 317", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "9 Md. App. 624", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Md. App.", "case_ids": [ 2339517 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/md-app/9/0624-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 U.S. 217", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6163406 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/362/0217-01" ] }, { "cite": "162 S.E. 2d 495", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "274 N.C. 186", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559668 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/274/0186-01" ] }, { "cite": "376 U.S. 364", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 379750 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/376/0364-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 S.E. 2d 25", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 N.C. 160", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571742 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/272/0160-01" ] }, { "cite": "374 U.S. 23", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 8495 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/374/0023-01" ] }, { "cite": "116 U.S. 616", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3516335 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/116/0616-01" ] }, { "cite": "387 U.S. 294", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11336837 ], "weight": 5, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/387/0294-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 590, "char_count": 9648, "ocr_confidence": 0.577, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.669800304354286e-08, "percentile": 0.3531597788133594 }, "sha256": "c39fd023ee2005e313357af0afc07f4a415433269dc4f1e8388116a44227e64b", "simhash": "1:b9fdde7e2bc588f9", "word_count": 1608 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:23:00.028129+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN RICHARD NEWSOM" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BRANCH, Justice.\nThe only assignment of error which defendant seriously argues before this Court is that the trial judge erred by allowing into evidence checks and currency seized pursuant to the execution of a search warrant authorizing a search for marijuana.\nDefendant, relying on Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 18 L.Ed. 2d 782, 87 S.Ct. 1642, argues the checks and currency were improperly admitted into evidence because they were neither contraband nor fruits of a crime within the officers\u2019 knowledge at the time of seizure.\nThe Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution intends to protect against unreasonable invasion of the \u201csanctity of a man\u2019s home and the privacies of life.\u201d Boyd v. U. S., 116 U.S. 616, 29 L.Ed. 746, 6 S.Ct. 524.\nA statement pertinent to decision of this question is found in Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden, supra, viz:\n\u201c . . . The requirements of the Fourth Amendment can secure the same protection of privacy whether the search is for \u2018mere evidence\u2019 or for fruits, instrumentalities or contraband. There must, of course, be a nexus \u2014 automatically provided in the case of fruits, instrumentalities or contraband \u2014 between the item to be seized and criminal behavior. Thus in the case of \u2018mere evidence,\u2019 probable cause must be examined in terms of cause to believe that the evidence sought will aid in a particular apprehension or conviction. In so doing, consideration of police purposes will be required. ...\u201d\nNeither the Fourth Amendment protection nor our statutory law applies to situations where there is no search. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 10 L.Ed. 2d 726, 83 S.Ct. 1623; State v. Craddock, 272 N.C. 160, 158 S.E. 2d 25. However, the limits of reasonableness which are placed upon searches apply with equal force to seizures, and whether a search or seizure is unreasonable depends on the circumstances of each case. Preston v. U. S., 376 U.S. 364, 11 L.Ed. 2d 777, 84 S.Ct. 881; State v. Howard, 274 N.C. 186, 162 S.E. 2d 495.\nIn the case of Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 4 L.Ed. 2d 668, 80 S.Ct. 683, officers as an incident to an arrest of Abel, preliminary to his deportation on the ground of illegal residence in this country, seized a coded message which Abel was seeking to hide in his sleeve. Defendant sought to suppress this seized article upon his trial for conspiracy to commit espionage. Rejecting his motion to suppress, the United States Supreme Court, in part, stated:\n\u201cThe other item seized in the course of the search of petitioner\u2019s hotel room was item (1), a piece of graph paper containing a coded message. This was seized by Schoenenberger as petitioner, while packing his suitcase, was seeking to hide it in his sleeve. An arresting officer is free to take hold of articles which he sees the accused deliberately trying to hide. This power derives from the dangers that a weapon will be concealed, or that relevant evidence will be destroyed. Once this piece of graph paper came into Schoenenberger\u2019s hands, it was not necessary for him to return it, as it was an instrumentality for the commission of espionage. This is so even though Schoenenberger was not only not looking for items connected with espionage but could not properly have been searching for the purpose of finding such items. When an article subject to lawful seizure properly comes into an officer\u2019s possession in the course of a lawful search it would be entirely without reason to say that he must return it because it was not one of the things it was his business to look for.\u201d\nThe case of Crawford v. State, 9 Md. App. 624, 267 A. 2d 317, is remarkably similar to the case before us for decision.\nIn Crawford, defendant appealed from his conviction of receiving stolen goods, contending that the trial judge erred by admitting into evidence a pawn ticket for a stolen radio. Appellant was convicted of receiving the radio described in the pawn ticket. This pawn ticket was seized by police officers while executing a search warrant authorizing a search for narcotics. The police found narcotic paraphernalia in defendant\u2019s bedroom and the challenged evidence among other pawn tickets in the bedroom closet.\nIn holding that the lower court did not err, the Maryland Court noting that \u201cmere evidence\u201d may be seized if there exist a nexus between the item seized and criminal behavior, Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden, supra, reasoned:\n\u201c . . . We think that here the police had reason to believe that there was a nexus between the 29 pawn tickets and criminal behavior. The large number of pawn tickets, come by on a valid search, showed that it was necessary that appellant frequently required cash and it was probable, in the light of the narcotic paraphernalia found in his possession by a legal search, that the cash was used to buy nar-, cotic drugs, the possession and control of which are ordinarily unlawful. We find that the seizure of the pawn tickets was reasonable and hold that the court did not err in admitting them.\u201d\nSee also U. S. ex rel Myles v. Twomey, 352 F. Supp. 180.\nIn instant case, there was no search involved in the seizure of the cash and checks. The officers who were legally upon the premises plainly saw the currency which was co-mingled with patently contraband materials. They also observed the checks scattered on the ground below an open window. The checks were not on the ground and the window was closed just before their entry into the apartment. At the time of seizure, it was reasonable for the officers to believe that the currency and checks were so related to the act of purchase or distribution of illicit drugs as to aid in the apprehension and prosecution of persons unlawfully dealing in those drugs. Further, the evident attempt to dispose of the checks was a circumstance which must have strengthened the officers\u2019 belief that a connection existed between the items seized and criminal behavior.\nUnder the circumstances of this case, the seizure of these suspicious objects which were in plain sight was reasonable.\nWe hold that the trial judge properly admitted the checks and currency into evidence.\nExamination of the entire record failed to disclose error prejudicial to defendant, and further discussion of the remaining assignments is deemed unnecessary.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "BRANCH, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Deputy Attorney General R. Bruce White, Jr. and Associate Attorney General Jones P. Byrd for the State.", "Assistant Public Defender D. Lamar Dowda for the defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN RICHARD NEWSOM\nNo. 39\n(Filed 12 December 1973)\nCriminal Law \u00a7. 84; Searches and Seizures \u00a7 1\u2014 warrant to search for . marijuana \u2014 seizure of other items.\nOfficers lawfully seized checks and currency while executing a warrant authorizing a search of defendant\u2019s apartment for marijuana, and the checks and currency were properly admitted in defendant\u2019s trial for armed robbery, where the currency was found co-mingled with patently contraband drugs and the checks were thrown from a window of the apartment after officers entered it, the officers having had reasonable grounds to believe that a connection existed between the items seized and criminal behavior.\nAppeal by defendant from Crissman, J., 23 October 1972 Criminal Session, Guilford County Superior Court.\nCriminal prosecution tried upon defendant\u2019s plea of not guilty, to an indictment charging him with robbery with firearms, a violation of G.S. 14-87.\nThe State\u2019s evidence may be summarized as follows: On 16 March 1972 at approximately 10:45 p.m., Mr. Clyde Kiker was in his store in Greensboro, North Carolina, when two men, masked by ladies\u2019 nylon hose, entered the store. One of the men was armed with a pistol, and by threatened use of the pistol, took from him cash and checks totaling $8,483.10. \u00a1 Mr. Kiker made a positive in-court identification of defendant as the man who threatened him with a pistol during the robbery.\nAt about 8:45 p.m. on the evening of 16 March 1972, officers of the Forsyth County Sheriff\u2019s Department procured a search warrant authorizing them to search an apartment leased by defendant and Frank Payne for marijuana. At about 1:15 a.m., armed with a search warrant, these officers went to Building 361, Apartment C, Glendare (King\u2019s Gate Apartments). They inspected the exterior and the surrounding grounds of the apartment. There were no open windows, and there were no papers or litter on the ground around the apartment. The officers knocked on the front door, identified themselves to Frank Payne, and advised him that they had a search warrant for the premises. The warrant was read to Payne, and the officers proceeded to search the apartment. They found defendant in a back bedroom on the second floor. In the middle of the floor of that bedroom was a white plastic bag containing loose currency, capsules, a bottle of pills and a white powder. The window in the bedroom was open, and the officers observed papers scattered on the ground below the window. These papers were later identified as checks taken from Mr. Kiker on the night of 16 March 1972.\nThe cash and checks along with the contraband drugs, were seized and were admitted into evidence .over defendant\u2019s objection and motion to suppress.\nDefendant offered evidence in the nature of an alibi.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty of robbery with a firearm as charged in the bill of indictment. Defendant appealed from judgment sentencing him to imprisonment for a term of not less than twenty nor more than twenty-five years. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and defendant appealed to this Court pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (1).\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Deputy Attorney General R. Bruce White, Jr. and Associate Attorney General Jones P. Byrd for the State.\nAssistant Public Defender D. Lamar Dowda for the defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0412-01", "first_page_order": 432, "last_page_order": 436 }