{
  "id": 4149168,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SHANNON DENISE HAISLIP",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Haislip",
  "decision_date": "2008-10-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 513PA07",
  "first_page": "499",
  "last_page": "500",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "362 N.C. 499"
    }
  ],
  "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": "651 S.E.2d 243",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12639558
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/651/0243-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 N.C. App. 275",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8155943
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/186/0275-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "651 S.E.2d 243",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12639558
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "247"
        },
        {
          "page": "278"
        },
        {
          "page": "246",
          "parenthetical": "\"No such [written] order appears in the record on appeal.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/651/0243-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 L. Ed. 2d 823",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 2003,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "537 U.S. 1133",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        9350848,
        9351014,
        9351079,
        9350664,
        9350889,
        9350695,
        9350953,
        9351145,
        9350727,
        9351342,
        9351407,
        9351279,
        9351220,
        9350807
      ],
      "year": 2003,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/537/1133-05",
        "/us/537/1133-08",
        "/us/537/1133-09",
        "/us/537/1133-01",
        "/us/537/1133-06",
        "/us/537/1133-02",
        "/us/537/1133-07",
        "/us/537/1133-10",
        "/us/537/1133-03",
        "/us/537/1133-13",
        "/us/537/1133-14",
        "/us/537/1133-12",
        "/us/537/1133-11",
        "/us/537/1133-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "566 S.E.2d 61",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "69",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "355 N.C. 642",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        220086
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "653",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/355/0642-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "543 S.E.2d 823",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "826",
          "parenthetical": "citations and internal quotation marks omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "353 N.C. 332",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        135584
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "336",
          "parenthetical": "citations and internal quotation marks omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/353/0332-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 L. Ed. 2d 177",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "464 U.S. 865",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6401817
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/464/0865-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 S.E.2d 335",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 N.C. 47",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4709664
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/308/0047-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "406 S.E.2d 812",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "821",
          "parenthetical": "citing State v. Williams, 308 N.C. 47, 301 S.E.2d 335, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 865, 78 L. Ed. 2d 177 (1983)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "329 N.C. 507",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2556019
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "524",
          "parenthetical": "citing State v. Williams, 308 N.C. 47, 301 S.E.2d 335, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 865, 78 L. Ed. 2d 177 (1983)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/329/0507-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 N.C. App. 275",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8155943
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "280"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/186/0275-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 273,
    "char_count": 4002,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.748,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.993325561824746e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5029563499648049
    },
    "sha256": "8e780d285202540d28251b53e4c527cf84cd5e96c50b7e7a4392be4b3aee04ea",
    "simhash": "1:2def62206087853c",
    "word_count": 664
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:47:03.529976+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SHANNON DENISE HAISLIP"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThe State of North Carolina seeks review of the unanimous Court of Appeals decision reversing the denial of defendant\u2019s motion to suppress the evidence used to convict her for driving while impaired and remanding for appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the constitutionality of a checkpoint. The State asserts that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that (1) defendant was \u201cstopped\u201d within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment; and (2) the constitutionality of the checkpoint is at issue, in that defendant evaded the checkpoint.\nOn review of a motion to suppress evidence, an appellate court determines whether the trial court\u2019s findings of fact are supported by the evidence and whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of law. State v. Wynne, 329 N.C. 507, 524, 406 S.E.2d 812, 821 (1991) (citing State v. Williams, 308 N.C. 47, 301 S.E.2d 335, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 865, 78 L. Ed. 2d 177 (1983)). The trial court\u2019s findings of fact \u201care conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting.\u201d State v. Buchanan, 353 N.C. 332, 336, 543 S.E.2d 823, 826 (2001) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The conclusions of law, however, are reviewed de novo. State v. Hyatt, 355 N.C. 642, 653, 566 S.E.2d 61, 69 (2002) (citation omitted), cert, denied, 537 U.S. 1133, 154 L. Ed. 2d 823 (2003). The trial court\u2019s findings of fact are critical to our substantive review of an appellant\u2019s arguments.\nAlthough the trial transcript indicates that the trial judge believed defendant \u201cwasn\u2019t snared by the checkpoint,\u201d the transcript is devoid of any formal, specific findings of fact or conclusions of law as to what transpired on the evening of defendant\u2019s arrest. Thus, we disagree with the Court of Appeals\u2019 statement that the trial court made a \u201cfinding that Defendant was not stopped by the checkpoint.\u201d State v. Haislip, 186 N.C. App. 275, 280, 651 S.E.2d 243, 247 (2007). Indeed, although the trial judge stated at the very end of the proceedings that he had \u201cwritten out in hand [his] findings and conclusions on the evidentiary hearing . . . with respect to the motion to suppress the evidence,\u201d the transcript reveals no ruling at all on the motion to suppress, and no such order was included in the record presented either to this Court or the Court of Appeals. See id. at 278, 651 S.E.2d at 246 (\u201cNo such [written] order appears in the record on appeal.\u201d).\nBecause we conclude that the record before us is inadequate to permit appellate review of the questions of law presented by the State\u2019s appeal, in that the record contains no order or ruling on defendant\u2019s motion to suppress, the decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded with direction to further remand to the Superior Court in Pitt County for written findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to resolve all issues raised by the motion to suppress.\nVACATED AND REMANDED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Kathryne E. Hathcock, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.",
      "The Robinson Law Firm, P.A., by Leslie S. Robinson, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SHANNON DENISE HAISLIP\nNo. 513PA07\n(Filed 10 October 2008)\nSearch and Seizure\u2014 motion to suppress \u2014 remand for findings and conclusions\nA driving while impaired (DWI) case is remanded to the superior court for written findings and conclusions sufficient to resolve all issues raised by defendant\u2019s motion to suppress evidence used to convict her of DWI based upon her contention that the evidence was procured as the result of an unconstitutional motor vehicle checkpoint.\nOn discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 186 N.C. App. 275, 651 S.E.2d 243 (2007), reversing a judgment entered on 23 May 2006, by Judge William C. Griffin, Jr. in the Superior Court in Pitt County, and remanding the case to the trial court. Heard in the Supreme Court 8 September 2008.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by Kathryne E. Hathcock, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.\nThe Robinson Law Firm, P.A., by Leslie S. Robinson, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0499-01",
  "first_page_order": 577,
  "last_page_order": 578
}