Open App →
Home › Case briefs › Criminal Law

State v. Norman

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2024 · Criminal Law
Reporter Citation Pending
Updated
Criminal Lawsearch and seizureknock and talkprobable causeinevitable discoveryFourth Amendmentsearch warranttotality of the circumstances

Facts

Detective Diaz investigated a break-in at Mr. Pete’s Market in which cigarettes, alcohol, lottery tickets, quarters, and ATM cash were stolen. After learning that one of the stolen lottery tickets had been presented at a nearby store, he reviewed surveillance footage showing a black Dodge Durango with black rims and a missing front bumper, then soon located a matching Durango nearby displaying a fictitious Maryland plate. Diaz knocked at the residence associated with the vehicle, received no answer, and later observed items in the vehicle; officers remained to secure the Durango while Diaz sought a warrant. Searches of the Durango and later the residence yielded cigarettes, lottery tickets, burglary tools, and other items tied to the break-in.

Issue

Did the trial court err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress on the ground that officers remained in and around the curtilage too long after an unsuccessful knock and talk? More specifically, did probable cause exist to search the Durango, and were the officers permitted to secure the scene while the warrant was being obtained?

Rule

Probable cause to issue a search warrant exists when there is reasonable cause to believe the proposed search probably will reveal the items sought and that those items will aid in apprehension or conviction; the determination is made under the totality of the circumstances and requires a nexus between the objects sought and the place to be searched. Officers may secure a scene to prevent evidence from being removed or destroyed while a warrant is sought. Even assuming evidence was obtained through an illegal search, suppression is not required if the State shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the evidence would inevitably have been discovered by lawful means.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Police in Asheville investigated a pharmacy break-in in which cartons of nicotine gum, prepaid debit cards, and cash were taken. The next day, an attempted use of one stolen prepaid card was captured on store video showing a silver SUV with a dented rear hatch, neon-green wheel rims, and no front grille; within an hour, Detective Lena Ortiz found a matching SUV two miles away in the same direction of travel, displaying a Colorado plate registered to a different vehicle type.

Before looking inside the SUV, did Detective Ortiz likely have probable cause to seek a warrant to search it?

Explanation. Probable cause exists when, under the totality of the circumstances, there is reasonable cause to believe the proposed search probably will reveal the items sought and that they will aid in apprehension or conviction. The majority held that probable cause can exist before any interior observation where officers have a substantial basis connecting a uniquely described vehicle to the crime through recent attempted use of stolen property, proximity, direction of travel, and a fictitious out-of-state plate. (Derived from State v. Norman (n.d.).)