State v. Abdullah

878 S.E.2d 182 (Table)

STATE of North Carolina

v.Tauhid Abdul Rahma ABDULLAH, Defendant.

No. COA22-66

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 4, 2022

STROUD, Chief Judge.

¶ 1 Defendant appeals the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm.

I. Background

¶ 2 In the winter of 2020, defendant was indicted for two counts of possession of controlled substances with intent to sell or deliver ("possession"). On or about 23 March 2021, defendant filed a motion "to suppress any physical evidence seized by the police" arguing the seizure was without probable cause. On 17 May 2021, the trial court entered an order denying defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant pled guilty to the two charges against him, reserving his right to appeal.

II. Motion to Suppress

¶ 3 Defendant contends "[t]he trial court should have allowed the motion to suppress because ... [defendant] was subjected to a de facto arrest by officers lacking probable cause[.]"

A. Standard of Review

The standard of review in evaluating the denial of a motion to suppress is whether competent evidence supports the trial court's findings of fact and whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of law. The trial court's findings are conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting. Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo and are subject to full review. Under a de novo review, the court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the lower tribunal.

State v. Royster , 224 N.C. App. 374, 375–76, 737 S.E.2d 400, 402–03 (2012) (citations and quotation marks omitted). "[U]nchallenged findings of fact are presumed to be supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal." In re R.D.B. , 274 N.C. App. 374, 379–80, 853 S.E.2d 1, 5 (2020) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

B. Trial Court Order

¶ 4 Defendant does not challenge any of the findings of fact, and thus they are binding on appeal. See id. The findings relevant to the issue on appeal are as follows:

1. On August 5, 2019, members of the Greensboro Police Department tactical narcotics team were working narcotics enforcement in the area of the NC 68 hotel corridor (near intersection of Interstate 40 and NC 68).

2. About 2-3 months prior, Detective Michael Lytle had encountered a female subject who gave him information about a person she knew as "T" who sold her drugs.

3. The informant described T as a light-skinned Black male who drove a gold Chevy Cavalier and sold heroin and crack from the vehicle. Informant told Det. Lytle that T would pick a customer up in his car, drive the customer around, make the transaction in the car, and then drop the buyer off. She also told Det. Lytle that T worked the area of the NC 68 hotel corridor. She said she knew this because she had purchased from T before. She also said the car had damage on the driver's side. Informant also told Det. Lytle that T kept drugs in the center console of his car in a Styrofoam cup in the cupholder.

4. Det. Lytle did some research into various data bases available to him (including DMV) and showed a DMV photo of Defendant Tauhid Abdullah to informant. She confirmed that Tauhid Abdullah was "T."

5. Det. Lytle also corroborated other information from informant relating to another person she had purchased from and was able to identify that person from the street name and other information informant gave him.

6. Det. Lytle believed, that based on Defendant's prior arrest record and informant's information, that Defendant was involved in narcotics sales.

7. Det. Lytle began an investigation on Defendant. He conducted surveillance on the address Defendant was court-ordered to keep. Det. Lytle observed Defendant's vehicle (gold Chevy Cavalier) and Defendant going to and from the residence.

8. On August 5, 2019, Det. Lytle saw Defendant leave gas station on South Regional Road (part of the 68 corridor area). He recognized Defendant and his vehicle.

9. Greensboro Police Officer Chandler Bryant had observed Defendant drop two people off at the gas station/store and radioed same information to Det. Lytle.

10. Det. Lytle and Officer Mendez began mobile surveillance of Defendant while Officer Bryant and Corporal Nicholas Goughnour followed up with the two persons Defendant had dropped off at the gas station/store. All four officers maintained radio contact with each other and shared information as they learned it.

11. Bryant and Goughnour saw a man and a woman that Defendant dropped off at the store.

12. Bryant saw the two-door gold Cavalier with matching tag and body damage pull into gas station and park at far left side of business. He saw a white male and white female get out of the car and walk toward a grassy area by the store where homeless and other down and out people are known to and do hang out. Det. Lytle asked Bryant and Goughnour to speak with the two subjects.

13. As the officers were walking toward the grassy area, Bryant noticed a crack pipe and saw that one of the two was about to start smoking crack. He detained the man. Bryant knew the substance was crack from looking at the pipe and seeing the matter stuffed in the end of it. The man confirmed it was crack, told Bryant that was all (contraband) he had. Man told Bryant he had just gotten it, just picked it up.

14. Man also told Goughnour he had purchased from guy he knew as T, that T drove a gold Cavalier and told Goughnour that he (Goughnour) had probably just seen it leave.

15. Goughnour relayed this information by radio to Det. Lytle, as Lytle was trying to locate or catch up to the Cavalier after it left the gas station.

16. The man also told Goughnour he wanted to work it off, indicating he wanted to help him with T and be an informant of sorts.

17. Meanwhile, Det. Lytle continued surveilling/following Defendant for about 7-10 minutes, learned from Chandler and Goughnour that they had recovered narcotics from the two people who got out of Defendant's car at the gas station and that ... those two told the officers they had purchased from Defendant, who then dropped them off at the gas station.

18. Det. Lytle decided to detain Defendant. He and Officer Mendez waited until Defendant stopped and pulled into a gas station lot on Sharpe Road, east of Gate City Boulevard.

19. Det. Lytle decided, based on Defendant's prior history involving a vehicle chase, that it would be safest to encounter Defendant when he was no longer in control of his vehicle.

20. So, after Defendant pulled his car into the gas station lot on Sharpe Road, Det. Lytle and Officer Mendez pulled in, blocked his car with their vehicles and detained him.

21. Det. Lytle asked Defendant if he had any weapons on him and got consent to search person. Defendant told Det. Lytle his ID was in the car.

22. Det. Lytle looked through the open passenger door and saw Styrofoam cup in the center console cupholder with the top of said cup ripped off so that cup was flush with the console.

23. Det. Lytle looked through windshield and could see into cup and saw that contents appeared to be narcotics. Det. Lytle is familiar with how narcotics are packaged and appear. He has been with tactical narcotics team for six years and with GPD for twelve.

24. Inside the cup, one bag appeared to have powder cocaine, one appeared to have crack cocaine and one appeared to have heroin.

25. Defendant was arrested and charged with PWIDS cocaine and PWISD heroin.

¶ 5 The trial court then concluded:

When detailed information is provided by an informant, especially when such information goes against informant's self-interest, the minute particulars of the tip make it reliable. State v. Tickle, 37 N.C. App. 416 (1978). Further, in general, a law enforcement officer may search an automobile without a warrant, if the officer has reasonable belief that the automobile carries contraband. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970). All of the informant's information about Defendant checked out and was corroborated. The search of Defendant's automobile was based upon information from a reliable informant and on information based on what Chandler and Goughnour saw and relayed to Lytle. The officers had collectively seen enough to arrest Defendant without a warrant. Further, under the automobile exception to a search warrant, a search is not unreasonable if it is based on facts that would justify a warrant's issue. There is no doubt in this case that Det. Lytle would have been issued a search warrant for Defendant's car based on his and the other officer's observations and the informants’ information.

The Court concludes, then, as a matter of law (as discussed above), the Motion to Suppress is without merit.

Therefore, it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Suppress filed March

...