State v. Julius

385 N.C. 331

892 S.E.2d 854

STATE of North Carolina v. Joanna Kaye JULIUS

No. 95A22

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed October 20, 2023

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by William Walton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellee.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, by John F. Carella, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant.

BERGER, Justice.

Following the denial of her motion to suppress, defendant was convicted of trafficking in methamphetamine, possession with intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver methamphetamine, and possession of methamphetamine. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to suppress and found no error in defendant's trial. Based upon a dissent in the Court of Appeals, the issues before this Court are (1) whether the search and subsequent seizure of contraband comports with the Fourth Amendment, and (2) if it does not, whether such evidence must be suppressed. For the reasons stated below, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand this matter to the trial court.

I. Background

Based upon the trial court's unchallenged findings of fact and testimony at the suppression hearing, on 20 May 2018, Trooper Justin Sanders of the North Carolina State Highway Patrol and Deputy Jesse Hicks of the McDowell County Sheriff's Office were dispatched to the scene of an automobile accident in McDowell County. Trooper Sanders was advised prior to arrival that the driver had fled the scene. Upon arrival, Trooper Sanders and Deputy Hicks observed a vehicle resting partially submerged in a ditch. Trooper Sanders and Deputy Hicks both testified that the vehicle could not have been driven out of the ditch and it ultimately had to be towed from the scene.

Defendant informed Trooper Sanders that she was a passenger in the vehicle, which was owned by her parents, but that someone she could only identify as Kyle had been driving. Witnesses confirmed that defendant was the passenger and that the driver fled on foot after stating that he could not remain at the scene because he had outstanding warrants against him. ¹

Defendant provided Trooper Sanders with her identification and told Trooper Sanders that she did not know whether Kyle left any form of identification in the vehicle. Based on the information received to that point, Trooper Sanders testified that he was conducting an investigation for a hit-and-run.

Without obtaining consent or a search warrant, Trooper Sanders searched the vehicle for evidence of Kyle's identity. Trooper Sanders testified that he was "looking for Kyle's driver[’]s license or ID" because he "needed a last name [of the driver]" to potentially prepare a wreck report. Upon locating a green and black Nike bag in the front passenger floorboard, Trooper Sanders looked inside the bag and discovered a black box the size of an electric razor case which was large enough to contain a driver's license. Trooper Sanders opened the black box and found scales, two cell phones, and two clear bags containing more than forty grams of methamphetamine. Defendant stated that the bag belonged to Kyle.

Trooper Sanders was unable to locate an identification for Kyle, and the search of the vehicle did not produce any additional evidence relating to the hit-and-run or other criminal activity. Based upon descriptions of Kyle provided by the witnesses, Deputy Hicks was subsequently able to determine that the driver was William Kyle Lytle.

As a result of the discovery of the contraband during the search of the vehicle, defendant was arrested and a pink backpack in her possession was searched. Trooper Sanders located several plastic bags containing a clear crystalline substance, a pistol, a glass pipe, and $1,785 in cash in defendant's bag.

Defendant was subsequently indicted for trafficking methamphetamine by possession, trafficking methamphetamine by transportation, possession with intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver a Schedule II controlled substance, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Before trial, defendant moved to suppress the evidence discovered at the scene, arguing that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.

Based upon the findings of fact above, the trial court concluded as a matter of law that because Kyle fled the scene of the accident and the officers did not know his identity:

4. ... It was reasonable for [Trooper] Sanders to conclude that the vehicle may contain evidence of the true identity of the driver, the cause of the collision, and/or the reason for the driver fleeing the scene, and he therefore had probable cause to search the vehicle for that evidence. Furthermore, Trooper Sanders had probable cause to arrest "Kyle" on suspicion that he had unserved orders for his arrest. As a result, Trooper ... Sanders had legal authority to search the vehicle and every place within the vehicle where any form of identification for Kyle Lytle could be found. Trooper ... Sanders’ subsequent search of the black and green Nike bag and the black box inside it were therefore constitutional searches. ^[2]

5. The discovery of what appeared to be methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia inside of the black and green Nike bag found in the passenger floorboard provided Trooper Sanders and Deputy Hicks with probable cause to arrest the defendant and search her pink backpack. The defendant had recently been an occupant of the vehicle wherein the contraband was discovered, and moreover she had recently occupied the seat near which it was found. Therefore there existed a fair probability that the controlled substances discovered were in the defendant's custody, care, or control, and also that the pink backpack she retained might contain further controlled substances or other paraphernalia.

After the trial court denied the motion to suppress, defendant's case came on for trial on 15 April 2019. A McDowell County jury found defendant guilty of trafficking in methamphetamine by possession and possession of methamphetamine with intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver. On 17 April 2019, defendant pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine, and pursuant to an agreement with the State, the possession of drug paraphernalia charge was dismissed. The trial court imposed a seventy to ninety-three month active sentence for trafficking in methamphetamine and a probationary sentence for the remaining convictions. Defendant timely appealed.

At the Court of Appeals, defendant argued in part that the trial court erred in concluding that the warrantless search was supported by probable cause. Nevertheless, the majority affirmed the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress and found no error in additional issues which are not before us in this appeal. State v. Julius , 282 N.C. App. 189, 194, 869 S.E.2d 778 (2022). In affirming the trial court's order, the majority relied primarily on the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement. Id. at 192, 869 S.E.2d 778. The Court of Appeals also opined that the "[o]fficers had reasonable suspicion to search the vehicle" and that "the officers were justified in searching the wrecked vehicle to get it out of the ditch for an inventory [search] or for officer safety." Id. at 193, 869 S.E.2d 778. However, the opinion below only mentions these exceptions to the warrant requirement in a cursory fashion.

The dissent in the Court of Appeals disagreed with the majority's conclusion, reasoning that "the evidence and argument presented to the trial court did not establish probable cause for the warrantless search" of the vehicle and the search incident to arrest exception did not apply because Kyle was not arrested. Id. at 195, 197–98, 869 S.E.2d 778 (Inman, J., dissenting). Additionally, the dissent maintained that because "the vehicle was in a ditch and inoperable," the justification behind the automobile exception to the warrant requirement was nullified. Id. at 199, 869 S.E.2d 778. Reasoning that the theories of officer safety, inventory search, and search for other people did not apply, as the State did not produce evidence to support any justification for the warrantless search, the dissent concluded that all of the evidence should have been excluded because the search and arrest of defendant stemmed from the initial illegal vehicle search.

Defendant appealed based upon the dissent in the Court of Appeals pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30. See N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) (2021).

II. Standard of Review

We review a trial court's order on a motion to suppress to determine "whether the trial court's underlying findings of fact are supported by competent evidence and whether those factual findings in turn support the trial court's ultimate conclusions of law." State v. Parisi , 372 N.C. 639, 649, 831 S.E.2d 236 (2019) (cleaned up). "Findings of fact not challenged on appeal ‘are deemed to be supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal.’ " State v. Tripp , 381 N.C. 617, 625, 873 S.E.2d 298 (2022) (quoting State v. Biber , 365 N.C. 162, 168, 712 S.E.2d 874 (2011) ). The trial court's "[c]onclusions of law are reviewed de novo." Biber , 365 N.C. at 168, 712 S.E.2d 874.

III. Analysis

The Fourth Amendment declares that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." U.S. Const. amend. IV. "Searches conducted by governmental officials in the absence of a judicial warrant are presumptively unreasonable." State v. Terrell , 372 N.C. 657, 665, 831 S.E.2d 17 (2019) (cleaned up). However, because "the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness,’ the warrant requirement is subject to certain exceptions." Brigham City v. Stuart , 547 U.S. 398, 403, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006).

"When seeking to admit evidence discovered by way of a warrantless search...