{ "id": 3743190, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GLENN DEVON McKINNEY", "name_abbreviation": "State v. McKinney", "decision_date": "2006-12-15", "docket_number": "No. 622PA05", "first_page": "53", "last_page": "65", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "361 N.C. 53" } ], "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": "619 S.E.2d 901", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12634064 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/619/0901-01" ] }, { "cite": "174 N.C. App. 138", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8350757 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/174/0138-01" ] }, { "cite": "474 U.S. 819", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6257890, 6256227, 6254342, 6255687, 6255343, 6256573, 6255955, 6257587, 6256949, 6254685, 6254971, 6257245 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/474/0819-12", "/us/474/0819-07", "/us/474/0819-01", "/us/474/0819-05", "/us/474/0819-04", "/us/474/0819-08", "/us/474/0819-06", "/us/474/0819-11", "/us/474/0819-09", "/us/474/0819-02", "/us/474/0819-03", "/us/474/0819-10" ] }, { "cite": "444 U.S. 836", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11325847, 11325442, 11325924, 11326116, 11325702, 11325483, 11325774, 11325647, 11325585, 11325527, 11326008 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/444/0836-08", "/us/444/0836-01", "/us/444/0836-09", "/us/444/0836-11", "/us/444/0836-06", "/us/444/0836-02", "/us/444/0836-07", "/us/444/0836-05", "/us/444/0836-04", "/us/444/0836-03", "/us/444/0836-10" ] }, { "cite": "506 U.S. 1049", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12084449, 12084292, 12084741, 12084359, 12084583, 12084331, 12084878, 12084687, 12084637, 12084405, 12084790, 12084541, 12084830 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/506/1049-05", "/us/506/1049-01", "/us/506/1049-10", "/us/506/1049-03", "/us/506/1049-07", "/us/506/1049-02", "/us/506/1049-13", "/us/506/1049-09", "/us/506/1049-08", "/us/506/1049-04", "/us/506/1049-11", "/us/506/1049-06", "/us/506/1049-12" ] }, { "cite": "544 U.S. 1067", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 5911264, 5867905, 5879778, 5918818, 5886244, 5880135, 5913162, 5912057, 5920335, 5869299, 5871413, 5876437, 3538169, 5892860, 5904093 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/544/1067-08", "/us/544/1067-12", "/us/544/1067-14", "/us/544/1067-05", "/us/544/1067-11", "/us/544/1067-04", "/us/544/1067-07", "/us/544/1067-13", "/us/544/1067-15", "/us/544/1067-06", "/us/544/1067-01", "/us/544/1067-10", "/us/544/1067-02", "/us/544/1067-03", "/us/544/1067-09" ] }, { "cite": "512 U.S. 1224", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 39938, 39939, 39750, 39722, 39628, 39629, 39118, 39343, 39647, 39122, 39160, 39610, 39132, 39837, 39839 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/512/1224-01", "/us/512/1224-05", "/us/512/1224-15", "/us/512/1224-10", "/us/512/1224-04", "/us/512/1224-07", "/us/512/1224-03", "/us/512/1224-06", "/us/512/1224-12", "/us/512/1224-09", "/us/512/1224-14", "/us/512/1224-13", "/us/512/1224-11", "/us/512/1224-08", "/us/512/1224-02" ] }, { "cite": "403 U.S. 934", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12040163, 12039717, 12039973, 12040072, 12039913, 12040328, 12039857, 12040114, 12040275, 12039795, 12040209, 12039638, 12040023 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/403/0934-10", "/us/403/0934-02", "/us/403/0934-06", "/us/403/0934-08", "/us/403/0934-05", "/us/403/0934-13", "/us/403/0934-04", "/us/403/0934-09", "/us/403/0934-12", "/us/403/0934-03", "/us/403/0934-11", "/us/403/0934-01", "/us/403/0934-07" ] }, { "cite": "531 U.S. 1167", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9788992, 9787808, 9789122, 9788188, 9788718, 9788430, 9787538, 9789235, 9788053, 9788565, 9787422, 9788309, 9788860, 9787676, 9787934 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/531/1167-13", "/us/531/1167-04", "/us/531/1167-14", "/us/531/1167-07", "/us/531/1167-11", "/us/531/1167-09", "/us/531/1167-02", "/us/531/1167-15", "/us/531/1167-06", "/us/531/1167-10", "/us/531/1167-01", "/us/531/1167-08", "/us/531/1167-12", "/us/531/1167-03", "/us/531/1167-05" ] }, { "cite": "619 S.E.2d 901", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12634064 ], "weight": 6, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "904" }, { "page": "906-07" }, { "page": "907" }, { "page": "904" }, { "page": "905", "parenthetical": "\"[I]n its order denying defendant's motion to suppress, the trial court merely summarized the evidence presented at voir dire and offered a blanket conclusion regarding the ultimate issue before it.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/619/0901-01" ] }, { "cite": "573 S.E.2d 125", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "129" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 582", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511484 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "586" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0582-01" ] }, { "cite": "591 S.E.2d 870", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "894", "parenthetical": "quoting Augur v. Augur, 356 N.C. 582, 586, 573 S.E.2d 125, 129 (2002)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "358 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2985361 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "38", "parenthetical": "quoting Augur v. Augur, 356 N.C. 582, 586, 573 S.E.2d 125, 129 (2002)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/358/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "476 U.S. 1165", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12444, 12982, 12847 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/476/1165-02", "/us/476/1165-03", "/us/476/1165-01" ] }, { "cite": "310 S.E.2d 301", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "310" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "310 N.C. 61", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2394579 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "74" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/310/0061-01" ] }, { "cite": "757 F.2d 1359", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 317364 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1368" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/757/1359-01" ] }, { "cite": "949 F.2d 851", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 11940935 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "859-60", "parenthetical": "remanding to the trial court for determination of whether an independent basis supported the search warrant or if discovery of the evidence was inevitable" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/949/0851-01" ] }, { "cite": "275 F.3d 449", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 9454457 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "468", "parenthetical": "remanding to the trial court for a determination whether, absent a reference to illegal pre-warrant search activities, the magistrate would have issued the warrants" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/275/0449-01" ] }, { "cite": "776 F.2d 807", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1516328 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "812", "parenthetical": "footnote omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/776/0807-01" ] }, { "cite": "771 F.2d 589", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 338145 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "604" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/771/0589-01" ] }, { "cite": "494 U.S. 1022", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 5540, 5547, 5516, 5166, 5366, 4823, 5560 ], "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/494/1022-04", "/us/494/1022-06", "/us/494/1022-03", "/us/494/1022-05", "/us/494/1022-01", "/us/494/1022-02", "/us/494/1022-07" ] }, { "cite": "376 S.E.2d 430", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "436" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2485742 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "9" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "322 S.E.2d 140", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "146" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 251", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4750239 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "262" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0251-01" ] }, { "cite": "610 S.E.2d 362", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "365", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Zuniga, 312 N.C. 251, 262, 322 S.E.2d 140, 146 (1984)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 394", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3798120 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "399", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Zuniga, 312 N.C. 251, 262, 322 S.E.2d 140, 146 (1984)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0394-01" ] }, { "cite": "319 S.E.2d 254", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "257" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 N.C. 633", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4681578 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "637" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/311/0633-01" ] }, { "cite": "462 U.S. 213", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6187462 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "230-31" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/462/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "446 U.S. 952", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6308706, 6306531, 6306052, 6305123, 6304905, 6306285, 6305485, 6307791, 6305757, 6306779, 6308157, 6307071 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/446/0952-12", "/us/446/0952-07", "/us/446/0952-05", "/us/446/0952-02", "/us/446/0952-01", "/us/446/0952-06", "/us/446/0952-03", "/us/446/0952-10", "/us/446/0952-04", "/us/446/0952-08", "/us/446/0952-11", "/us/446/0952-09" ] }, { "cite": "614 F.2d 541", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1401574 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "547" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/614/0541-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 F.3d 1247", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 11648095 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1250", "parenthetical": "noting that a reviewing court \"may disregard allegedly tainted material in the affidavit and ask whether sufficient facts remain to establish probable cause\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/83/1247-01" ] }, { "cite": "834 F.2d 782", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 10548756 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "788", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/834/0782-01" ] }, { "cite": "399 U.S. 30", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6168009 ], "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "34", "parenthetical": "\"[O]nly in a few specifically established and well-delineated situations may a warrantless search of a dwelling withstand constitutional scrutiny .... The burden rests on the State to show the existence of such an exceptional situation.\" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/399/0030-01" ] }, { "cite": "437 U.S. 385", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6180644 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "393-94", "parenthetical": "\"[W]arrants are generally required to search a person's home or his person unless 'the exigencies of the situation' make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.\" (citations omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/437/0385-01" ] }, { "cite": "250 S.E.2d 630", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "635" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 N.C. 314", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565892 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "321" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/296/0314-01" ] }, { "cite": "476 U.S. 1115", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12928, 12900, 13061, 12904, 12425, 12907, 12889, 12913, 12724, 12697, 12861, 12574 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/476/1115-08", "/us/476/1115-09", "/us/476/1115-04", "/us/476/1115-12", "/us/476/1115-07", "/us/476/1115-01", "/us/476/1115-02", "/us/476/1115-11", "/us/476/1115-03", "/us/476/1115-10", "/us/476/1115-05", "/us/476/1115-06" ] }, { "cite": "778 F.2d 899", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1526965 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "904" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/778/0899-01" ] }, { "cite": "438 U.S. 154", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1769234 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "155-56" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/438/0154-01" ] }, { "cite": "633 F.2d 742", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1298184 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "745", "parenthetical": "\"'[I]f the lawfully obtained information amounts to probable cause and would have justified issuance of the warrant apart from the tainted information, the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant is admitted.' \" (quoting James, 418 F.2d at 1152)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/633/0742-01" ] }, { "cite": "418 F.2d 1150", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 2165992 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1151" }, { "page": "1152" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/418/1150-01" ] }, { "cite": "493 U.S. 953", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11429312, 11429088, 11429123, 11429161, 11429198, 11429359, 11429008, 11429522, 11429399, 11429049, 11429274, 11429468, 11429245 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/493/0953-09", "/us/493/0953-03", "/us/493/0953-04", "/us/493/0953-05", "/us/493/0953-06", "/us/493/0953-10", "/us/493/0953-01", "/us/493/0953-13", "/us/493/0953-11", "/us/493/0953-02", "/us/493/0953-08", "/us/493/0953-12", "/us/493/0953-07" ] }, { "cite": "761 F.2d 1294", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 29415 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1300" }, { "page": "1300" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/761/1294-01" ] }, { "cite": "876 F.2d 589", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 10534781 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "592" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/876/0589-01" ] }, { "cite": "506 U.S. 958", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12024449, 12024421, 12024390, 12024647, 12024618, 12024715, 12024684, 12024562, 12024530, 12024596, 12024374, 12024503, 12024758, 12024473, 12024794 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/506/0958-04", "/us/506/0958-03", "/us/506/0958-02", "/us/506/0958-11", "/us/506/0958-10", "/us/506/0958-13", "/us/506/0958-12", "/us/506/0958-08", "/us/506/0958-07", "/us/506/0958-09", "/us/506/0958-01", "/us/506/0958-06", "/us/506/0958-14", "/us/506/0958-05", "/us/506/0958-15" ] }, { "cite": "962 F.2d 1131", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 10524184 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1141, 1144" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/962/1131-01" ] }, { "cite": "966 F.2d 964", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 10524254 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "970", "parenthetical": "noting that a warrant is valid under the independent source rule so long as the \"warrant affidavit, once purged of tainted facts ... contains sufficient evidence to constitute probable cause\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/966/0964-01" ] }, { "cite": "991 F.2d 1182", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 10516742 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1186", "parenthetical": "\"The inclusion of tainted evidence does not invalidate a search warrant if enough untainted evidence supports it . . . .\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/991/1182-01" ] }, { "cite": "371 U.S. 471", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 450611 ], "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "484-88" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/371/0471-01" ] }, { "cite": "295 S.E.2d 399", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "402", "parenthetical": "citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-88 (1963)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "306 N.C. 594", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573222 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "597-98", "parenthetical": "citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-88 (1963)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/306/0594-01" ] }, { "cite": "416 U.S. 505", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 84471 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "554-55", "parenthetical": "Powell, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/416/0505-01" ] }, { "cite": "254 S.E.2d 586", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "590-91", "parenthetical": "upholding the admission of evidence despite an illegal search when \"the officers, through lawful means, had independently obtained probable cause to suspect that the [area searched] contained contraband\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "297 N.C. 216", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568424 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "224-26", "parenthetical": "upholding the admission of evidence despite an illegal search when \"the officers, through lawful means, had independently obtained probable cause to suspect that the [area searched] contained contraband\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/297/0216-01" ] }, { "cite": "487 U.S. 533", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1775229 ], "weight": 7, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "542", "parenthetical": "\"[W]hile the government should not profit from its illegal activity, neither should it be placed in a worse position than it would otherwise have occupied.\"" }, { "page": "535" }, { "page": "536" }, { "page": "542-43" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/487/0533-01" ] }, { "cite": "423 S.E.2d 740", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "744" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "333 N.C. 106", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2549919 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "113-14" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/333/0106-01" ] }, { "cite": "393 U.S. 1087", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11427041, 11427255, 11427083, 11427182, 11427218, 11426998, 11427127 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/393/1087-02", "/us/393/1087-07", "/us/393/1087-03", "/us/393/1087-05", "/us/393/1087-06", "/us/393/1087-01", "/us/393/1087-04" ] }, { "cite": "163 S.E.2d 376", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "384", "parenthetical": "\"Evidence unconstitutionally obtained is excluded in both state and federal courts as an essential to due process - not as a rule of evidence but as a matter of constitutional law.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "274 N.C. 295", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560020 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "306", "parenthetical": "\"Evidence unconstitutionally obtained is excluded in both state and federal courts as an essential to due process - not as a rule of evidence but as a matter of constitutional law.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/274/0295-01" ] }, { "cite": "291 S.E.2d 618", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "620" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "306 N.C. 132", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567694 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "135" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/306/0132-01" ] }, { "cite": "445 U.S. 573", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1777746 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "586" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/445/0573-01" ] }, { "cite": "488 S.E.2d 210", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "213", "parenthetical": "quoting Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586 (1980)" }, { "page": "213", "parenthetical": "noting that searches \"inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable\" (citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "346 N.C. 794", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 139625 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "798", "parenthetical": "quoting Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586 (1980)" }, { "page": "798" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/346/0794-01" ] }, { "cite": "430 F.2d 1141", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 2232076 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1143-44" }, { "page": "1143" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/430/1141-01" ] }, { "cite": "808 F.2d 1346", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1369032 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1348", "parenthetical": "holding defendant had standing to challenge search of hotel room where he returned to hotel only forty-eight hours later than originally intended, hotel billed his credit card for an extra day, and he contacted police to inquire about items later seized" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/808/1346-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 U.S. 217", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6163406 ], "year": 1960, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "240-41", "parenthetical": "upholding search of hotel-room because \"at the time of the search [defendant] had vacated the room\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/362/0217-01" ] }, { "cite": "396 F.3d 538", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 9035715 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "544-47" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/396/0538-01" ] }, { "cite": "440 S.E.2d 98", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "110-11" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "335 N.C. 353", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2528296 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "378" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/335/0353-01" ] }, { "cite": "178 S.E.2d 597", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "601" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "278 N.C. 36", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559596 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "41" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/278/0036-01" ] }, { "cite": "536 S.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "7" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "352 N.C. 227", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 685065 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "237" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/352/0227-01" ] }, { "cite": "174 N.C. App. 138", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8350757 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "141" }, { "page": "146" }, { "page": "143" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/174/0138-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1290, "char_count": 31085, "ocr_confidence": 0.747, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.5574487077969554e-07, "percentile": 0.8150245439019804 }, "sha256": "18e857e79ad9dfbbc1f9d3af5a57eccfa15e391e68399f4e0bbbe79ac9ac1a31", "simhash": "1:a6a9e22a6fefabf2", "word_count": 4904 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:19:48.141297+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Justices BRADY and TIMMONS-GOODSON did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GLENN DEVON McKINNEY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, Justice.\nDefendant was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of his roommate, Jerry Louis Alston. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.\nOn 17 May 2003, Amy Millikan (Amy) advised Greensboro Police Sergeant D.S. Morgan that her roommate, Aja Snipes (Aja), had confided in her that Aja\u2019s friend, \u201cPhoenix,\u201d had killed his roommate. Amy provided an address on Drexel Road where she believed \u201cPhoenix\u201d lived, although the house number was later determined to be incorrect. Sergeant Morgan relayed this information to Sergeant Jane Allen and dispatched two other officers to the scene. \u201cPhoenix\u201d was later identified as defendant, Glenn Devon McKinney.\nSergeant Morgan drove to Amy and Aja\u2019s apartment to interview Aja about her knowledge of the crime. Aja\u2019s description of the house where the victim and defendant lived was relayed to Sergeant Allen, who by that time had arrived at Drexel Road. Two other officers were knocking on doors and checking with neighbors to see if they were aware of two males living on Drexel Road. The officers focused on 1917 Drexel Road because \u201cthat\u2019s the house that seemed to match the description that was being given.\u201d\nWhen Sergeant Allen arrived at 1917 Drexel Road, the residence was locked and secured. Sergeant Morgan informed Sergeant Allen that defendant was reportedly driving the victim\u2019s blue Jeep Cherokee, and Sergeant Allen noted that the Jeep was not in the driveway. The victim\u2019s sister, Irma Alston (Irma), arrived and informed Sergeant Allen that her brother lived at 1917 Drexel Road. Irma called her brother, Ricky Alston (Ricky), because she believed that he had a key to the house, although when he arrived on the scene he did not have a key with him. Neither Irma nor Ricky had heard from the victim in several days. Sergeant Allen contacted the victim\u2019s employer and learned that the victim had not reported for work the day before as scheduled, which was very unusual.\nSergeant Allen continued to gather information, speaking by telephone with the officers who were interviewing Aja and Amy and hearing conversations between other officers and the victim\u2019s family members, who had begun to congregate on the sidewalk outside the residence. Sergeant Allen learned that defendant had told Aja that the victim \u201cpulled a knife on me. I didn\u2019t know what else to do,\u201d and defendant added that the victim \u201cwouldn\u2019t be coming back.\u201d When Sergeant Allen returned to the residence after briefly leaving the scene, she found that Ricky had entered defendant\u2019s house. After removing an air conditioning unit and climbing through the window, Ricky invited the officers into the house. Accompanied by Sergeant Morgan, who by this time had arrived on the scene, Sergeant Allen entered the residence. The officers later testified that they entered the house to look for \u201ca victim who [might] be in need of assistance\u201d and \u201cfor any sign that... there may in fact have been an assault there, and perhaps ... a victim somewhere else that [they] needed to continue a search for.\u201d As they went through the house, the officers saw what appeared to be blood spatter in the front bedroom. After this discovery, they left the house, instructed other officers to secure the scene, and went to obtain a search warrant.\nAfter securing a search warrant, Sergeant Allen returned to the residence with Detective David Spagnola. While crime scene specialists investigated the front bedroom, Sergeant Allen and Detective Spagnola noticed a large, city-issued trash can in the laundry room. A towel and two candles were on the lid of the can. The officers believed it was unusual for the trash can to be inside the house, and because Detective Spagnola was unable to lift it, they realized it might contain a victim. The officers asked one of the crime scene specialists to photograph the trash can and its contents. Underneath the towel on the lid of the can was a computer-generated note that said \u201cGlenn Devon McKinney did this.\u201d When the officers opened the trash can, they discovered the victim\u2019s body inside.\nDefendant was tried non-capitally, convicted of first-degree murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Before trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress th\u00e9 evidence obtained from 1917 Drexel Road. His motion challenged not only the officers\u2019 initial warrantless entry into the residence at that address, but also the validity of the subsequent search warrant. Defendant contended that the search warrant was invalid because probable cause for issuing the warrant was based in part on the blood spatter evidence obtained by police during their initial entry into the residence. He argued that all evidence seized during the subsequent search should be suppressed, including the victim\u2019s body. In response, the state argued that defendant lacked standing to object to the initial warrantless entry of the house, and, in the alternative, that exigent circumstances authorized law enforcement officials to enter the residence. The trial court denied defendant\u2019s motion to suppress.\nOn appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed defendant\u2019s conviction, holding that the trial court erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion to suppress because the initial police entry into the residence was unlawful and therefore the subsequent search warrant was \u201cfruit of the poisonous tree.\u201d State v. McKinney, 174 N.C. App. 138, 141, 619 S.E.2d 901, 904 (2005). This Court allowed the state\u2019s petition for discretionary review.\nWe first examine whether defendant had standing to contest the police searches of the victim\u2019s house. When the competency of evidence is challenged and the trial court conducts a voir dire to determine admissibility, the general rule is that it should make findings of fact to show the basis of its ruling. State v. Steen, 352 N.C. 227, 237, 536 S.E.2d 1, 7 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1167 (2001). If there is a material conflict in the evidence on voir dire, the trial court is required to make findings in order to resolve the conflict. State v. Smith, 278 N.C. 36, 41, 178 S.E.2d 597, 601, cert. denied, 403 U.S. 934 (1971). In the instant case, the trial court failed to make the requisite findings on the issue of whether defendant had standing to challenge the searches of the victim\u2019s house.\nA defendant has standing to contest a search if he or she has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the property to be searched. See State v. Mlo, 335 N.C. 353, 378, 440 S.E.2d 98, 110-11, cert denied, 512 U.S. 1224 (1994). A reasonable expectation of privacy in real property may be surrendered, however, if the property is permanently abandoned. See, e.g., United States v. Stevenson, 396 F.3d 538, 544-47 (4th Cir.) (holding defendant lacked standing to contest search of apartment when evidence \u201cstrongly suggested] that he did not intend to return to it\u201d), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1067 (2005); see also Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 240-41 (1960) (upholding search of hotel-room because \u201cat the time of the search [defendant] had vacated the room\u201d). When a defendant temporarily abandons property, an intent to return will give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy. See United States v. Mulder, 808 F.2d 1346, 1348 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding defendant had standing to challenge search of hotel room where he returned to hotel only forty-eight hours later than originally intended, hotel billed his credit card for an extra day, and he contacted police to inquire about items later seized); United States v. Robinson, 430 F.2d 1141, 1143-44 (6th Cir. 1970) (holding that prosecution failed to establish abandonment of apartment justifying warrantless search thereof when the only admissible evidence of abandonment was premised on defendant\u2019s absence and nonpayment of rent for over a month, which shed no light on whether he intended to return). \u201c[Abandonment will not be presumed . . . [and] must be clearly shown.\u201d Robinson, 430 F.2d at 1143.\nDuring the suppression hearing in the instant case, the prosecutor raised and properly preserved the issue of defendant\u2019s standing to contest the search. Conflicting evidence was presented as to whether defendant maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises. The trial court did not resolve this conflicting evidence or issue any conclusions as to whether such facts gave rise to a reasonable expectation by defendant of privacy in the victim\u2019s residence at the time the search was conducted. Because of this omission, defendant\u2019s standing to contest the validity of the search is unclear, and, though we express no opinion on this question, our standard of review compels us to remand the case for findings of fact on this issue.\nWe now consider the propriety of the initial, warrantless search and the existence of probable cause to support the search warrant. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals \u201cagainst unreasonable searches and seizures\u201d and provides that search warrants may only be issued \u201cupon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.\u201d U.S. Const, amend. IV; see also N.C. Const. art. I, \u00a7 20 (\u201cGeneral warrants . .. are dangerous to liberty and shall not be granted.\u201d). \u201c \u2018[S]earches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.\u2019 \u201d State v. Smith, 346 N.C. 794, 798, 488 S.E.2d 210, 213 (1997) (quoting Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586 (1980)). \u201cThe governing premise of the Fourth Amendment is that a governmental search and seizure of private property unaccompanied by prior judicial approval in the form of a warrant is per se unreasonable unless the search falls within a well-delineated exception to the warrant requirement involving exigent circumstances.\u201d State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 135, 291 S.E.2d 618, 620 (1982).\nFourth Amendment rights are enforced primarily through the \u201cexclusionary rule,\u201d which provides that evidence derived from an unconstitutional search or seizure is generally inadmissible in a criminal prosecution of the individual subjected to the constitutional violation. See, e.g., State v. Colson, 274 N.C. 295, 306, 163 S.E.2d 376, 384 (1968) (\u201cEvidence unconstitutionally obtained is excluded in both state and federal courts as an essential to due process \u2014 not as a rule of evidence but as a matter of constitutional law.\u201d), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1087 (1969). In short, evidence obtained in violation of an individual\u2019s Fourth Amendment rights cannot be used by the government to convict him or her of a crime.\nThe \u201cfruit of the poisonous tree doctrine,\u201d a specific application of the exclusionary rule, provides that \u201c[w]hen evidence is obtained as the result of illegal police conduct, not only should that evidence be suppressed, but all evidence that is the \u2018fruit\u2019 of that unlawful conduct should be suppressed.\u201d State v. Pope, 333 N.C. 106, 113-14, 423 S.E.2d 740, 744 (1992). Only evidence discovered as a result of unconstitutional conduct constitutes \u201cfruit of the poisonous tree.\u201d See Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 542 (1988) (\u201c[W]hile the government should not profit from its illegal activity, neither should it be placed in a worse position than it would otherwise have occupied.\u201d). This limitation on the \u201cfruit of the poisonous tree\u201d doctrine is known as the \u201cindependent source rule,\u201d which applies when \u201ca later, lawful seizure is genuinely independent of an earlier, tainted one.\u201d Id. Under such circumstances, the independent source rule provides that evidence obtained illegally should not be suppressed if it is later acquired pursuant to a constitutionally valid search or seizure. See, e.g., State v. Phifer, 297 N.C. 216, 224-26, 254 S.E.2d 586, 590-91 (1979) (upholding the admission of evidence despite an illegal search when \u201cthe officers, through lawful means, had independently obtained probable cause to suspect that the [area searched] contained contraband\u201d).\nUnited States Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell explained the interplay between the independent source rule and the constitutional validity of a search warrant:\nThe independent-source rule has as much vitality in the context of a search warrant as in any other. Thus, for example, unlawfully discovered facts may serve as the basis for a valid search warrant if knowledge of them is obtained from an independent and lawful source. The obvious and well-established corollary is that the inclusion in an affidavit of indisputably tainted allegations does not necessarily render the resulting warrant invalid. The ultimate inquiry on a motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a warrant is not whether the underlying affidavit contained allegations based on illegally obtained evidence, but whether, putting aside all tainted allegations, the independent and lawful information stated in the affidavit suffices to show probable cause.\nUnited States v. Giordano, 416 U.S. 505, 554-55 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (emphasis added) (citation omitted).\nThe \u201cexcise and re-examine\u201d corollary to the independent source rule, as explained by Justice Powell in Giordano, qualifies the cardinal principle that if \u201cinformation used to obtain [a search] warrant was procured through an unconstitutional seizure[,] . . . the warrant and the search conducted under it were illegal and the evidence obtained from them was \u2018fruit of the poisonous tree.\u2019 \u201d State v. Lombardo, 306 N.C. 594, 597-98, 295 S.E.2d 399, 402 (1982) (citing Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-88 (1963)). If facts in the affidavit independent of the unlawful police conduct created probable cause to issue the warrant, the warrant is valid. See, e.g., United States v. Wright, 991 F.2d 1182, 1186 (4th Cir. 1993) (\u201cThe inclusion of tainted evidence does not invalidate a search warrant if enough untainted evidence supports it . . . .\u201d); United States v. Restrepo, 966 F.2d 964, 970 (5th Cir. 1992) (noting that a warrant is valid under the independent source rule so long as the \u201cwarrant affidavit, once purged of tainted facts ... contains sufficient evidence to constitute probable cause\u201d), cert. denied sub nom. Pulido v. United States, 506 U.S. 1049 (1993); United States v. Herrold, 962 F.2d 1131, 1141, 1144 (3rd Cir.) (applying the independent source rule to uphold a warrant because the application contained probable cause apart from the improper information), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 958 (1992); United States v. Johnston, 876 F.2d 589, 592 (7th Cir.) (\u201c[W]e must consider whether \u2018the untainted information, considered by itself, establishes probable cause for the warrant to issue.\u2019 \u201d (quoting United States v. Alexander, 761 F.2d 1294, 1300 (9th Cir. 1985))), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 953 (1989); Alexander, 761 F.2d at 1300 (\u201c \u2018[WJhen an affidavit in support of a search warrant contains information which is in part unlawfully obtained, the validity of a warrant and search depends on whether the untainted information, considered by itself, establishes probable cause for the warrant to issue.\u2019 \u201d (quoting James v. United States, 418 F.2d 1150, 1151 (D.C. Cir. 1969))); United States v. Williams, 633 F.2d 742, 745 (8th Cir. 1980) (\u201c\u2018[I]f the lawfully obtained information amounts to probable cause and would have justified issuance of the warrant apart from the tainted information, the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant is admitted.\u2019 \u201d (quoting James, 418 F.2d at 1152)); cf. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978) (holding that when false statements are knowingly or recklessly made by an officer in a warrant application, they must be \u201cset to one side, [and if] the affidavit\u2019s remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause, the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded\u201d); United States v. Veillette, 778 F.2d 899, 904 (1st Cir. 1985) (holding that knowingly including & false statement in a warrant affidavit is \u201cthe functional equivalent\u201d of including illegally obtained information, and the appropriate analysis in either circumstance is to set aside the tainted information and determine if the remaining content supports probable cause), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1115 (1986); State v. Louchheim, 296 N.C. 314, 321, 250 S.E.2d 630, 635 (\u201c[T]here was probable cause to support the search warrant on the face of the affidavit when [the] false information is disregarded.\u201d), cert, denied, 444 U.S. 836 (1979).\nIn light of these well-settled Fourth Amendment principles, we examine two distinct issues: (1) whether the officers\u2019 initial, warrantless entry into the residence at 1917 Drexel Road was constitutionally permissible under a recognized exception to the warrant requirement; and (2) if not, whether sufficient untainted evidence not derived from the unreasonable warrantless search provided probable cause to issue the search warrant. The Court of Appeals properly decided the first issue, but failed to address the second.\nThe officers\u2019 initial search of defendant\u2019s house was conducted without a warrant and was therefore presumptively unreasonable. See Smith, 346 N.C. at 798, 488 S.E.2d at 213 (noting that searches \u201cinside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable\u201d (citation omitted)). To overcome this presumption, the state had to establish that the officers\u2019 initial, warrantless entry fell within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. See generally Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393-94 (1978) (\u201c[W]arrants are generally required to search a person\u2019s home or his person unless \u2018the exigencies of the situation\u2019 make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.\u201d (citations omitted)); Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 34 (1970) (\u201c[O]nly in a few specifically established and well-delineated situations may a warrantless search of a dwelling withstand constitutional scrutiny .... The burden rests on the State to show the existence of such an exceptional situation.\u201d (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The Court of Appeals found that the circumstances surrounding the initial entry into defendant\u2019s house, \u201cwhen viewed in [their] entirety, d[id] not establish an immediate need of entry into [the] residence.\u201d McKinney, 174 N.C. App. at 146, 619 S.E.2d at 906-07. Applying established Fourth Amendment law, the Court of Appeals properly concluded \u201cthat the State failed to establish any exigent circumstances authorizing the officers\u2019 warrantless entry.\u201d Id. at 146, 619 S.E.2d at 907. We affirm that portion of the Court of Appeals decision which held that \u201cto the extent that the trial court relied upon exigent circumstances in reaching its decision, . . . the trial court erred.\u201d Id.\nBecause the officers\u2019 initial entry was unlawful, the Court of Appeals concluded that \u201cthe subsequent search warrant was based upon \u2018fruit of the \u201cpoisonous\u201d tree.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 141, 619 S.E.2d at 904. However, the Court of Appeals did not undertake a necessary step in ascertaining the constitutional validity of a search warrant: It did not consider whether the detective\u2019s warrant application to the issuing magistrate established probable cause for the warrant independent of the illegally obtained evidence.\nIf the affidavit supporting a warrant application includes information obtained illegally, \u201c[a] reviewing court should excise the tainted evidence and determine whether the remaining, untainted evidence would provide a neutral magistrate with probable cause to issue a warrant.\u201d United States v. Vasey, 834 F.2d 782, 788 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Cusumano, 83 F.3d 1247, 1250 (10th Cir. 1996) (noting that a reviewing court \u201cmay disregard allegedly tainted material in the affidavit and ask whether sufficient facts remain to establish probable cause\u201d); United States v. Korman, 614 F.2d 541, 547 (6th Cir.) (indicating that the court can \u201cexamine the balance of the underlying search warrant affidavit for probable cause in order to determine whether the evidence lawfully obtained was sufficient to [uphold] the search and seizure\u201d), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 952 (1980).\nThus, the admissibility of the evidence defendant sought to suppress turns on whether the untainted evidence in the supporting affidavit established probable cause to search his residence. Any information in the warrant affidavit that was acquired during the illegal warrantless entry must be excised. Specifically, the following portion of the affidavit must be disregarded, as it was derived exclusively from the officers\u2019 unlawful warrantless search:\nRick Alston then entered the residence, concerned for his brother\u2019s well being, and allowed Detective J.F. Allen to walk through it with him. What appears to be blood spatters on the walls of a bedroom, blood smudges in the carpet of the bedroom and bloodstains on one chair were located in the residence. No one was located inside.\nWith this tainted information excised, the validity of the search warrant (and consequently, the admissibility of the physical evidence seized thereunder) depends on whether the remaining information set forth in the warrant affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause to search defendant\u2019s house.\nThe existence of probable cause is a \u201ccommonsense, practical question\u201d that should be answered using a \u201ctotality-of-the-circumstances approach.\u201d Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230-31 (1983); State v. Arrington, 311 N.C. 633, 637, 319 S.E.2d 254, 257 (1984). \u201c \u2018Probable cause is a flexible, common-sense standard. It does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false.\u2019 \u201d State v. Sinapi, 359 N.C. 394, 399, 610 S.E.2d 362, 365 (2005) (quoting State v. Zuniga, 312 N.C. 251, 262, 322 S.E.2d 140, 146 (1984)). \u201cReviewing courts should give great deference to the magistrate\u2019s determination of probable cause and should not conduct a de novo review of the evidence to determine whether probable cause existed at the time the warrant was issued.\u201d State v. Greene, 324 N.C. 1, 9, 376 S.E.2d 430, 436 (1989), judgment vacated on other grounds, 494 U.S. 1022 (1990).\nIn the instant case, however, the trial court\u2019s order denying defendant\u2019s motion to suppress did not specify the factual or legal basis for the decision. See McKinney, 174 N.C. App. at 143, 619 S.E.2d at 905 (\u201c[I]n its order denying defendant\u2019s motion to suppress, the trial court merely summarized the evidence presented at voir dire and offered a blanket conclusion regarding the ultimate issue before it.\u201d). Rather, the trial court\u2019s order contained limited findings of fact. None of these findings indicates whether the trial court would have found the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant admissible even if the tainted evidence had been excised from the warrant application. As such, the record in this case does not reveal the extent to which consideration of the illegally obtained information affected the trial court\u2019s determination that the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant should not be suppressed.\nThe United States Supreme Court has safeguarded the role of trial courts in making \u201cindependent source\u201d determinations with respect to evidence challenged on Fourth Amendment grounds. In Murray v. United States, federal agents had entered a warehouse without a warrant, wherein they observed in plain view bales of what they believed to be marijuana. 487 U.S. at 535. They immediately left the premises and obtained a search warrant. Id. The agents\u2019 warrant application \u201cdid not mention the prior entry, and did not rely on any observations made during that entry.\u201d Id. at 536. Before trial, petitioners Murray and several co-conspirators sought to suppress the evidence seized from the warehouse pursuant to the warrant, arguing that the warrant was tainted by the prior warrantless entry. Id. On appeal from the district court\u2019s denial of petitioner\u2019s motion to suppress, the First Circuit found no error in the trial court\u2019s decision, concluding that \u201c \u2018[t]his is as clear a case as can be imagined where the discovery of the contraband ... was totally irrelevant to the later securing of a warrant .... [T]here was no causal link whatever between the illegal entry and the discovery of the challenged evidence ....\u2019\u201d Id. at 542-43 (quoting United States v. Moscatiello, 771 F.2d 589, 604 (1st Cir. 1985)). The Supreme Court disagreed, admonishing: \u201c [I]t is the function of the District Court rather than the Court of Appeals to determine the facts, and we do not think the Court of Appeals\u2019 conclusions are supported by adequate findings.\u201d Id. The Supreme Court ordered that the case be remanded \u201cto the District Court for determination whether the warrant-authorized search of the warehouse was an independent source of the challenged evidence in the sense we have described.\u201d Id. at 543-44.\nUnder circumstances similar to the instant case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained why remand to the trial court was more appropriate than unilateral appellate court determination of the warrant\u2019s validity:\nThe [trial] court. .. never made an inquiry as to whether the search warrant was based upon independent evidence. . . .\nWhile in the present case, there appears to be sufficient independent evidence to have prompted the issuance of a search warrant despite some reference to the illegal entry, this is essentially the duty of the district court to make the appropriate finding. We therefore vacate and remand to the district court to inquire into the basis for the search warrant.\nUnited States v. Driver, 776 F.2d 807, 812 (9th Cir. 1985) (footnote omitted). Other federal circuit courts which have addressed this issue have generally reached the same conclusion: When illegally obtained information was presented in a warrant application and it is unclear whether the trial court would have upheld the validity of the warrant based on the untainted information alone, the appropriate action is to remand the case so that the trial court may determine whether probable cause exists absent the tainted evidence. See, e.g., id.; United States v. Runyan, 275 F.3d 449, 468 (5th Cir. 2001) (remanding to the trial court for a determination whether, absent a reference to illegal pre-warrant search activities, the magistrate would have issued the warrants); United States v. Richardson, 949 F.2d 851, 859-60 (6th Cir. 1991) (remanding to the trial court for determination of whether an independent basis supported the search warrant or if discovery of the evidence was inevitable). But see United States v. Thomas, 757 F.2d 1359, 1368 (2d Cir.) (\u201cA determination of whether probable cause existed must be made by us independently, as the deference usually accorded to a magistrate\u2019s finding of probable cause is not appropriate when the magistrate relied in part on improper information.\u201d (citations omitted)), cert denied, sub nom. Fisher v. United States, 474 U.S. 819 (1985).\nThis Court has generally followed the same remedial course of action when \u201cthe conclusion [of law] is based upon such a careful assessment of the facts, and actually constitutes the application of a standard to the facts.\u201d State v. McDowell, 310 N.C. 61, 74, 310 S.E.2d 301, 310 (1984), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1165 (1986). In such cases, \u201cwe believe it is appropriate to hold that the conclusion should, in the first instance, be made by the trial court.\u201d Id. This rule recognizes the \u201ctrial courts\u2019 \u2018institutional advantages\u2019 over appellate courts in the \u2018application of facts to fact-dependent legal standards.\u2019 \u201d Whitacre P\u2019ship v. BioSignia, Inc., 358 N.C. 1, 38, 591 S.E.2d 870, 894 (2004) (quoting Augur v. Augur, 356 N.C. 582, 586, 573 S.E.2d 125, 129 (2002)). Thus, we decline to speculate as to the probable outcome in the instant case had the trial court analyzed the validity of the search warrant based only on the legally obtained information in the affidavit. We therefore should afford the trial court an opportunity to evaluate the validity of the warrant using the appropriate legal standard.\nAccordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the portion of that Court\u2019s judgment reversing defendant\u2019s conviction is vacated. We therefore remand this case to the Court of Appeals with instructions to remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. As to the additional questions presented by the state, we conclude that discretionary review of those issues was improvidently allowed.\nJUDGMENT VACATED; AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED IN PART.\nJustices BRADY and TIMMONS-GOODSON did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.\n. The parties and the Court of Appeals have variously labeled the alleged exception to the warrant requirement in the instant case as \u201cexigent circumstances,\u201d \u201cemergency activities,\u201d and \u201cemergency response.\u201d See generally Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment \u00a7 6.6(a)-(c), at 451-79 (4th ed. 2004).", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by William B. Crumpler, Assistant Attorney General, for the state-appellant.", "Paul F. Herzog for defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GLENN DEVON McKINNEY\nNo. 622PA05\n(Filed 15 December 2006)\n1. Search and Seizure\u2014 standing to object to search \u2014 findings not sufficient\nThe standing of defendant to challenge the search of a murder victim\u2019s house was not clear, and the case was remanded, where the court did not make the requisite findings concerning any reasonable expectation of privacy by defendant in the house at the time of the search.\n2. Search and Seizure\u2014 illegal entry into murder victim\u2019s house \u2014 independent probable cause \u2014 findings not sufficient\nA trial court order denying a murder defendant\u2019s motion to suppress evidence was remanded where police officers gathered outside the house which defendant shared with the missing victim; the victim\u2019s brother removed an air conditioner, entered the house, and invited officers inside; bloodstains were noted and a search warrant was obtained; and the body was found during the subsequent search. The Court of Appeals correctly found that there was no immediate need of entry and that the trial court erred to the extent that it relied on exigent circumstances. However, the Court of Appeals did not consider whether there was independent probable cause and the trial court did not specify the factual or legal basis for its decision.\nJustices Brady and Timmons-Goodson did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.\nOn discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 174 N.C. App. 138, 619 S.E.2d 901 (2005), reversing defendant\u2019s conviction and the resulting judgment entered 16 April 2004 by Judge L. Todd Burke in Superior Court, Guilford County, and ordering a new trial. Heard in the Supreme Court 19 April 2006.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by William B. Crumpler, Assistant Attorney General, for the state-appellant.\nPaul F. Herzog for defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0053-01", "first_page_order": 111, "last_page_order": 123 }