State v. Goins

248 N.C.App. 265

789 S.E.2d 466

STATE of North Carolina

v.Jamison Christopher GOINS.

No. COA15–1183.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 5, 2016.

Attorney General, Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General, Shawn R. Evans, for the State.

Willis Johnson & Nelson PLLC, Raleigh, by Drew Nelson, for Defendant.

McGEE, Chief Judge.

Jamison Christopher Goins ("Defendant") was indicted on 8 September 2014 for possession of a firearm by a felon, possession with intent to sell or deliver marijuana, felony possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The charges against Defendant resulted from evidence obtained following a stop of Defendant's vehicle, a Hyundai Elantra ("the Elantra"), just after midnight on the morning of 14 July 2014. Officer A.T. Branson ("Officer Branson") and Officer T.B. Cole ("Officer Cole") (together, "the officers"), of the Greensboro Police Department, were patrolling in the vicinity of the Spring Manor Apartment Complex ("the apartment complex") late on 13 July 2014 and into 14 July 2014. At some time prior to 14 July 2014, Officer Branson was talking to the manager of the apartment complex concerning an unrelated matter when the manager stated to him: " ‘The apartment complex is getting bad again,’ ... and she also mentioned that she received word from residents in the apartment complex that the occupants of Apartment 408 were involved in both the sale and use of illegal narcotics." " Apartment 408" was actually a building comprised of multiple apartments. Both officers testified the apartment complex was situated in a high-crime drug area, and Officer Cole referred to the apartment complex as "basically an open-air drug market."

Just after midnight on 14 July 2014, the officers were driving a marked police car ("the police car") and decided to drive through the parking lot of Spring Valley Shopping Center ("the shopping center"), which was directly across the street from the apartment complex. Officer Branson was driving the police car, and he turned the police car so that its headlights were focused in the direction of the apartment complex.

At the suppression hearing, Officer Cole testified:

Not long after I began looking, we noticed a white Hyundai Elantra pull into the [apartment] complex and proceed very slowly through.

I observed no one out in the parking lot, no other vehicles running. As I made—as I watched the Elantra and it came around the u-shaped driveway, I noticed an individual [ ("the man") ] standing outside building 408. I advised Officer Branson to pay attention to [the man] and the [Elantra].

As [the Elantra] came around the corner and became—or drove closer to [the man] and that building, 408, I noticed [the man] turn and look towards our police car, because our headlights at that point had basically turned to the point that we were lighting his direction.

He looked at us, looked back at the Elantra, looked at us again, and then shouted something at the passenger side, whatever—that was the side facing him—toward the Elantra. At that point [the man] began to back away and head back into the apartment complex.

The [Elantra] sped up and pulled out of the parking lot. I told Officer Branson to stick with the [Elantra], because you can't get both. After that we decided, based on the totality of the circumstances and the reasonable suspicion that we had at that time, that we would go ahead and conduct a traffic stop on the [Elantra].¹

Officer Branson testified he observed the Elantra driving slowly around the "U-shaped" drive of the apartment complex parking lot; observed the man standing outside building 408, illuminated by the headlights of the police car; observed the man "look in [the] direction [of the police car] and look back at the ... Elantra, which was [by then] almost in front of [the man;]" was informed by Officer Cole that Officer Cole had "heard someone yell[;]" then observed the Elantra increase its speed and "quickly" exit the apartment complex parking lot; and observed the man turn around and enter apartment building 408. The officers then initiated the stop of the Elantra based upon a belief that there was reasonable suspicion that the occupants of the Elantra and the man were about to conduct an illegal drug transaction.² As a result of this stop, the officers discovered that Defendant was in possession of a firearm, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia.

Defendant moved to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the stop based upon his argument that there was not reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify the stop. Defendant's motion was heard on 13 April 2015, and was denied by order entered 15 April 2015. Defendant preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress, and entered guilty pleas for the charges of possession of a firearm by a felon, possession with intent to sell or distribute marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The charge of possession of marijuana was dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement. Defendant was sentenced to a cumulative eighteen to forty months, the sentences were suspended, and Defendant was placed on supervised probation. Defendant appeals.

Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress all evidence obtained pursuant to the stop of the Elantra on 14 July 2014. We agree.

Defendant specifically argues the following: (1) the record evidence did not support the trial court's finding that Defendant's actions constituted "flight," (2) that the trial court erred in that there was insufficient evidence of any nexus between the police presence and Defendant's action in exiting the parking lot of the apartment complex—and that there was no evidence, nor finding, that Defendant noticed the officers across the street, and (3) there was insufficient evidence supporting reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot.

Our standard of review is as follows:

"[T]he scope of appellate review of [a denial of a motion to suppress] is strictly limited to determining whether the trial judge's underlying findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, in which event they are conclusively binding on appeal, and whether those factual findings in turn support the judge's ultimate conclusions of law." A trial court's factual findings are binding on appeal "if there is evidence to support them, even though the evidence might sustain findings to the contrary." We review the trial court's conclusions of law de novo.

State v. Mello, 200 N.C.App. 437, 439, 684 S.E.2d 483, 486 (2009) (citations omitted).

Our Supreme Court has discussed the obligations and prerequisites for making a vehicle stop consistent with the Fourth Amendment:

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals "against unreasonable searches and seizures." The North Carolina Constitution provides similar protection. A traffic stop is a seizure "even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief." Such stops have "been historically viewed under the investigatory detention framework first articulated in Terry v. Ohio [.]" Despite some initial confusion following the United States Supreme Court's decision in Whren v. United States, ... courts have continued to hold that a traffic stop is constitutional if the officer has a "reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot."

Reasonable suspicion is a "less demanding standard than probable cause and requires a showing considerably less than preponderance of the evidence." Only " ‘some minimal level of objective justification’ " is required. This Court has determined that the reasonable suspicion standard requires that "[t]he stop ... be based on specific and articulable facts, as well as the rational inferences from those facts, as viewed through the eyes of a reasonable, cautious officer, guided by his experience and training." Moreover, "[a] court must consider ‘the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture’ in determining whether a reasonable suspicion" exists.

State v. Barnard, 362 N.C. 244, 246–47, 658 S.E.2d 643, 645 (2008) (citations omitted). "[T]he ‘constitutionality of a traffic stop depends on the objective facts, not the officer's subjective motivation [.]’ " State v. Heien, 366 N.C. 271, 276, 737 S.E.2d 351, 354 (2012) (citations omitted). The trial court's determination of whether the totality of the circumstances supports a reasonable suspicion that the defendant might be engaged in criminal activity is a conclusion of law subject to de novo review. State v. Wilson, 155 N.C.App. 89, 93–94, 574 S.E.2d 93, 97 (2002). Furthermore, the trial court's conclusions of law based on the totality of circumstances " ‘must be legally correct, reflecting a correct application of applicable legal principles to the facts found.’ " State v. Barden, 356 N.C. 316, 332, 572 S.E.2d 108, 121 (2002) (citations omitted).

In order to evaluate the trial court's conclusion that the stop in the present case was justified, we begin with the United States Supreme Court opinion Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000), which recognized that "flight" from police presence can be a factor in support of finding reasonable suspicion:

On September 9, 1995, Officers Nolan and Harvey were working as uniformed officers in the special operations section of the Chicago Police Department. The officers were driving the last car of a four-car caravan converging on an area known for heavy narcotics trafficking in order to investigate drug transactions. The officers were traveling together because they expected to find a crowd of people in the area, including lookouts and customers.

As the caravan passed 4035 West Van Buren, Officer Nolan observed respondent Wardlow standing next to the building holding an opaque bag. Respondent looked in the direction of the officers and fled. Nolan and Harvey turned their car southbound, watched him as he ran through the gangway and an alley, and eventually cornered him on

...