Title: State v. Long

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

NO. COA13-305 
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS 
Filed: 3 December 2013 
 
 
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 
 
 
 
 
 
 
v. 
 
Vance County 
Nos. 11 CRS 52943—45  
GLENN EDWARD BENTERS, 
Defendant. 
 
 
 
 
Appeal by the State from order entered 21 September 2012 by 
Judge Carl R. Fox in Vance County Superior Court.  Heard in the 
Court of Appeals 11 September 2013. 
 
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General 
Derrick C. Mertz, for the State. 
 
Brock, Payne & Meece, P.A., by C. Scott Holmes, for defendant-
appellee. 
 
 
BRYANT, Judge. 
 
 
A motion to suppress evidence should be granted where the 
information presented in the search warrant has not been 
independently verified or corroborated by the requesting officer. 
Where a trial court makes competent findings of fact and 
conclusions of law in granting a motion to suppress evidence, we 
will not disturb those findings on appeal. 
-2- 
 
 
On 29 September 2011, Detective Justin Hastings, a narcotics 
detective with the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office, contacted 
Lieutenant Joseph Ferguson of the Vance County Sheriff’s Office 
regarding a drug investigation that began in Franklin County.  A 
confidential informant had informed Det. Hastings that defendant 
Glenn Edward Benters (“defendant”) was running an indoor marijuana 
growing operation on defendant’s property.  The informant further 
stated that defendant “also maintained a residence in Myrtle Beach, 
South Carolina.”  When shown a driver’s license photograph of 
defendant by Det. Hastings, the informant positively identified 
the person in the photograph as defendant.  
Det. Hastings contacted Lt. Ferguson and Special Agent Lynn 
Gay of the State Bureau of Investigation and relayed the 
information learned from the informant.  Det. Hastings also 
subpoenaed information on 29 September 2011 regarding power usage 
for defendant’s property from Progress Energy.  The report from 
Progress Energy provided the kilowatt usage and current subscriber 
information for the property.  Det. Hastings testified that the 
Progress Energy report was “indicative of [a] marijuana grow 
operation[] base[d] on [the] extreme high kilowatt usage” at 
defendant’s property because “the lows and the highs [were] not 
consistent of that with any type of weather patterns.”  
-3- 
 
 
Based on the information from Progress Energy regarding 
defendant’s property’s energy use, Det. Hastings travelled to 
Vance County to meet with Lt. Ferguson regarding the investigation. 
The officers were acting in accordance with a mutual aid agreement 
between the Franklin and Vance County Sheriffs’ Offices.  It was 
determined that a surveillance of defendant’s property should be 
conducted from an open field near the residence.  
Upon arriving at defendant’s property, Lt. Ferguson and the 
other accompanying officers observed a locked and posted gate 
across the drive leading to defendant’s residence.  Lt. Ferguson 
testified that he had been to defendant’s residence for a prior 
incident and that the gate had been unlocked and open at that time.  
Lt. Ferguson and the officers decided to use a “well-worn 
path for foot traffic” on the adjoining property to reach an open 
field from which defendant’s property could be observed.  The path 
led the officers to an open field on the adjoining lot where they 
could see the rear of defendant’s residence, a building adjacent 
to the residence, a greenhouse, and other outbuildings.  The 
officers observed a red pick-up truck parked near a shed on the 
residence; Lt. Ferguson testified that he had never observed 
defendant driving that particular vehicle.  Music was also heard 
emanating from the property.  Lt. Ferguson used binoculars to 
-4- 
 
 
observe “old potting soil bags, cups, trays, fertilizer bags, pump 
sprayers, [and] a greenhouse, but no fields were in cultivation.” 
Lt. Ferguson testified that the greenhouse appeared to be unused 
and was in a general state of disrepair.  Lt. Ferguson noted that 
defendant’s property did not contain any evidence of a garden plot, 
potted plants, or fields in cultivation. Det. Hastings testified 
that, based on his experience with prior growing operations, the 
gardening supplies observed were used by marijuana growers.  
The officers then returned to the entrance of defendant’s 
property and entered the property through a farm gate at the 
driveway entrance.  Lt. Ferguson decided to speak with defendant 
through a “knock and talk” approach.  Lt. Ferguson knocked on the 
rear side door of defendant’s premises, but received no answer. 
The officers then approached a white outbuilding from which music 
was emanating.  While knocking on the door of the building, 
officers smelled a strong odor of growing marijuana.  The building 
was padlocked and no one responded to the officers’ knocks. 
Officers also observed “thick mil plastic,” which is used to shield 
grow lighting from observation, around the door of the building.  
Upon exiting the property, several officers were left at the 
entrance of the property to secure the premises while Lt. Ferguson 
and other officers went to the Sheriff’s Office to obtain a search 
-5- 
 
 
warrant for the property.  In the Search Warrant Affidavit, Lt. 
Ferguson stated that: 
 
On September 29, 2011 Lt. Ferguson, 
hereby 
known 
as 
your 
affiant, 
received 
information from Detective J. Hastings of the 
Franklin County Sheriff’s Office Narcotics 
Division about a residence in Vance County 
that is currently being used as an indoor 
marijuana 
growing 
operation. 
Detective 
Hastings has extensive training and experience 
with indoor marijuana growing investigations 
on the state and federal level.  Within the 
past week Hastings met with a confidential and 
reliable source of information that told him 
an indoor marijuana growing operation was 
located at 527 Currin Road in Henderson, North 
Carolina.  The informant said that the growing 
operation was housed in the main house and 
other buildings on the property. 
 The 
informant also knew that the owner of the 
property was a white male by the name of Glenn 
Benters.  Benters is not currently living at 
the residence, however [he] is using it to 
house an indoor marijuana growing operation. 
Benters and the Currin Road property is also 
known by your affiant from a criminal case 
involving a stolen flatbed trailer with a load 
of wood that was taken from Burlington, North 
Carolina. 
Detective 
Hastings 
obtained 
a 
subpoena for current subscriber information. 
[sic] Kilowatt usage, account notes, and 
billing information for the past twenty-four 
months in association with the 527 Currin Road 
Henderson NC property from [the] Progress 
Energy Legal Department.  Information provided 
in said subpoena indicated that Glenn Benters 
is the current subscriber and the kilowatt 
usage hours are indicative of a marijuana grow 
operation based on the extreme high and low 
kilowatt usage. 
 
Also on 9-29-2011 Detective Hastings and 
-6- 
 
 
your affiant along with narcotics detectives 
from the Vance and Franklin County Sheriffs’ 
Office as well as special agents with the 
North 
Carolina 
S.B.I. 
traveled 
to 
the 
residence at 527 Currin Road Henderson NC and 
observed 
from 
outside 
of 
the 
curtilage 
multiple items in plain view that were 
indicative of an indoor marijuana growing 
operation.  The items mentioned above are as 
followed; 
[sic] 
potting 
soil, 
starting 
fertilizer, seed starting trays, plastic cups, 
metal storage racks, and portable pump type 
sprayers.  Detectives did not observe any 
gardens or potted plants located around the 
residence.  Detectives observed a red Dodge 
full size pickup truck parked by a building 
located on the curtilage of the residence and 
heard music coming from the area of the 
residence. 
 
 
After 
observing 
the 
above 
listed 
circumstances, 
detectives 
attempted 
to 
conduct a knock and talk interview with anyone 
present at the residence.  After knocking on 
the back door, which your affiant knows 
Benters commonly uses based on previous 
encounters, your affiant waited a few minutes 
for someone to come to the door.  When no one 
came to the door, your affiant walked to a 
building behind the residence that music was 
coming from in an attempt to find someone. 
Upon reaching the rear door of the building, 
your affiant instantly noticed the strong odor 
of marijuana emanating from the building.  
Your affiant walked over to a set of double 
doors on the other side of the building and 
observed two locked double doors that had been 
covered from the inside of the building with 
thick mil black plastic commonly used in 
marijuana grows to hide light emanated by 
halogen light[s] typically used in indoor 
marijuana 
growing 
operations. 
Thick 
mil 
plastic was also present on windows inside the 
residence as well.  
-7- 
 
 
 
  
A search warrant was obtained and executed on 29 September 
2011, resulting in the seizure of 91.25 pounds of marijuana, a 
variety of supplies used for growing marijuana, drug packaging 
items and paraphernalia, and multiple firearms from the property.  
On 
30 
September 
2011, 
defendant 
was 
charged 
with 
manufacturing marijuana, trafficking marijuana by manufacture, 
trafficking marijuana by possession, possession with intent to 
sell or deliver fifty-five marijuana plants, maintaining a 
residence for keeping and selling a controlled substance, 
maintaining a building for keeping and selling a controlled 
substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia.  On 28 November 
2011, defendant was indicted by the Vance County Grand Jury on all 
charges.  Defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress the 
evidence discovered during a search of his property pursuant to a 
search warrant.  The matter was heard 11 June 2012.  The trial 
court filed a written order on 24 September 2012 granting the 
motion.  
The State appeals. 
_______________________________________ 
On appeal, the State argues that the trial court erred in 
suppressing the evidence against defendant.  We disagree. 
In evaluating the denial of a motion to 
-8- 
 
 
suppress, the reviewing court must determine 
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 of fact on a 
motion to suppress are conclusive on appeal if 
supported by competent evidence, even if the 
evidence is conflicting.  Indeed, an appellate 
court accords great deference to the trial 
court in this respect because it is entrusted 
with the duty to hear testimony, weigh [the 
evidence,] and resolve any conflicts in the 
evidence . . . .  Conclusions of law are 
reviewed de novo and are fully reviewable on 
appeal.  
 
State v. Williams, 366 N.C. 110, 114, 726 S.E.2d 161, 165 (2012) 
(citations and internal quotations omitted).  
 
The State concedes that the “knock and talk” entry onto 
defendant’s property was an illegal search, but argues that the 
search warrant remained valid because it was supported by probable 
cause through the informant and the utility bill. As such, we must 
consider whether the warrant, based on the statements of the 
informant, the utility bill, and the officers’ “open fields” 
observations of defendant’s property, was sufficient to establish 
probable cause.  
 
“In determining . . . whether probable cause exists for the 
issuance of a search warrant, our Supreme Court has provided that 
the ‘totality of the circumstances’ test . . . is to be applied.” 
State v. Witherspoon, 110 N.C. App. 413, 417, 429 S.E.2d 783, 785 
-9- 
 
 
(1993) 
(citations 
omitted). 
Under 
the 
“totality 
of 
the 
circumstances” test,  
[t]he task of the issuing magistrate is simply 
to 
make 
a 
practical, 
common 
sense 
decision whether, given all the circumstances 
set forth in the affidavit before him, 
including 
the 
"veracity" 
and 
"basis 
of 
knowledge" 
of 
persons 
supplying 
hearsay 
information, there is a fair probability that 
contraband or evidence of a crime will be 
found in a particular place. And the duty of 
a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the 
magistrate had a "substantial basis for . . . 
conclud[ing]" that probable cause existed. 
 
State v. Arrington, 311 N.C. 633, 638, 319 S.E.2d 254, 257—58 
(1984) (citation omitted).  “Under our statutes a magistrate 
issuing a warrant can base a finding of probable cause only on 
statements of fact confirmed by oath or affirmation of the party 
making the statement, or on information which the magistrate 
records or contemporaneously summarizes in the record [pursuant 
to] G.S. 15A-244; G.S. 15A-245(a).”  State v. Teasley, 82 N.C. 
App. 150, 156—57, 346 S.E.2d 227, 231 (1986) (citation omitted). 
Here, the State contests the trial court’s Finding of Fact 2 
and Conclusion of Law 1.  In its Finding of Fact 2, the trial court 
found that “[p]rior to September 29, 2011, Detective Hastings 
received information from a confidential informant that the 
Defendant, Glenn Benters, was growing marijuana on his farm on 
Currin Road in Vance County.  This confidential informant had not 
-10- 
 
 
previously provided information to Detective Hastings that had 
later proven to be reliable.”  In its Conclusion of Law 1, the 
trial court stated that  
[i]nformation provided by a confidential 
informant who has not proven to be reliable by 
providing information which later proved to be 
truthful 
or 
resulted 
in 
arrests 
and 
convictions in the past, together with the 
power usage records for the Defendant’s 
residence 
from 
Progress 
Energy, 
lacked 
sufficient 
“indicia 
of 
reliability” 
to 
establish probable cause for the issuance of 
a search warrant for the Defendant’s property.  
 
 
The State contends that the trial court’s Finding of Fact 2 
and Conclusion of Law 1 were erroneous because the trial court 
found that the informant “has not proven to be reliable by 
providing information which later proved to be truthful or resulted 
in arrests and convictions in the past . . . .”  Det. Hastings 
testified at the suppression hearing that the informant was “used 
multiple times in the past, ha[d] always provided reliable 
information, who ha[d] [sic] conducted numerous controlled 
purchases, had been able to identify both marijuana, cocaine 
hydrochloride, cocaine base, on site and interact with those 
persons selling and using illegal substances.”  However, this Court 
has held that statements made after the issuance of a warrant 
regarding the reliability of the informant cannot be considered in 
determining whether the warrant was properly based on probable 
-11- 
 
 
cause.  See State v. Newcomb, 84 N.C. App. 92, 351 S.E.2d 565 
(1987) (holding that in determining the validity of a warrant, 
only information presented at the time the warrant was issued can 
be considered, despite the requesting officer later testifying at 
a 
suppression 
hearing 
that 
he 
had 
“unintentionally 
and 
inadvertently” failed to provide information regarding the 
reliability of the informant in the warrant affidavit); see also 
State v. Styles, 116 N.C. App. 479, 483, 448 S.E.2d 385, 387 (1994) 
(“[P]ursuant to North Carolina General Statutes § 15A-245 . . . 
information other than that contained in the affidavit may not be 
considered by the issuing official in determining whether probable 
cause exists for the issuance of the warrant unless the information 
is either recorded or contemporaneously summarized in the record 
or on the face of the warrant by the issuing official.”).  As such, 
the testimony of Det. Hastings at the suppression hearing cannot 
be considered in evaluating whether the warrant was based on 
probable cause. 
The trial court, in reviewing the sufficiency of the search 
warrant, was limited to the information presented to the magistrate 
at the time the warrant was requested.  “The police officer making 
the affidavit [to accompany the search warrant] may do so in 
reliance upon information reported to him by other officers in the 
-12- 
 
 
performance of their duties."  State v. Vestal, 278 N.C. 561, 576, 
180 S.E.2d 755, 765 (1971) (citation omitted).  However,  
[p]robable cause cannot be shown by affidavits 
which are purely conclusory, stating only the 
affiant's 
or 
an 
informer's 
belief 
that 
probable cause exists without detailing any of 
the underlying circumstances upon which that 
belief is based. . . .  Recital of some of the 
underlying circumstances in the affidavit is 
essential if the magistrate is to perform his 
detached function and not serve merely as a 
rubber stamp for the police.  The issuing 
officer 
must 
judge 
for 
himself 
the 
persuasiveness of the facts relied on by a 
complaining officer to show probable cause.  
He should not accept without  question the 
complainant's mere conclusion. . . . 
 
State v. Edwards, 286 N.C. 162, 167, 209 S.E.2d 758, 761—62 (1974) 
(citations and internal quotations omitted).  
 
Here, Lt. Ferguson stated in the affidavit that Det. Hastings 
had met with a confidential informant who said that defendant was 
growing marijuana on his property.  Lt. Ferguson described the 
informant as a “confidential and reliable source of information,” 
but did not state on what prior occasions the informant’s 
information had proved reliable, whether informant had personally 
witnessed defendant’s grow operation, or that informant had 
purchased marijuana from defendant.  Although the threshold for 
establishing an informant’s reliability is low, that threshold 
must be met.  See State v. McKoy, 16 N.C. App. 349, 351—52, 191 
-13- 
 
 
S.E.2d 897, 899 (1972) (holding that an “affiant’s statement that 
[a] confidential informant has proven reliable and credible in the 
past" is sufficient to sustain a warrant through probable cause); 
see also State v. Beam, 325 N.C. 217, 381 S.E.2d 327 (1989) 
(discussing how a defendant’s prior history of involvement with 
drugs and evidence from a controlled purchase involving defendant 
allowed for probable cause); Arrington, 311 N.C. 633, 319 S.E.2d 
254 (affidavit allowed for probable cause where the officer 
personally knew one informant, a second informant acknowledged 
buying drugs from defendant, and both informants had previously 
provided information which had led to arrests); State v. McLeod, 
36 N.C. App. 469, 244 S.E.2d 716 (1978) (information in the 
affidavit regarding an informant’s controlled purchase of drugs 
from defendant was sufficient for probable cause); Edwards, 286 
N.C. 162, 209 S.E.2d 758 (discussing how proof of an informant’s 
firsthand knowledge of defendant’s drug dealing, such as 
purchasing drugs from defendant or seeing defendant producing and 
selling drugs, is needed to show the informant’s reliability).  As 
the affidavit failed to provide sufficient information showing 
that the confidential informant was reliable, the trial court’s 
findings of fact support its conclusions of law that the evidence 
was insufficient to establish probable cause.  
-14- 
 
 
The State also contends that the presence of gardening 
supplies outside of defendant’s buildings and the utility report 
from Progress Energy provided sufficient probable cause for 
execution of a warrant.  Citing State v. O’Kelly, 98 N.C. App. 
265, 390 S.E.2d 717 (1990), the State argues that an informant’s 
tip, considered in conjunction with an officer’s observations of 
suspicious equipment outside of defendant’s home, permits a 
finding of probable cause for issuance of a warrant.  
In 
O’Kelly, 
officers 
received 
information 
from 
the 
defendant’s neighbor and an informant that the defendant was 
engaged in the manufacture and sale of methamphetamine.  Id. at 
267, 390 S.E.2d at 718.  Officers obtained the defendant’s criminal 
records which reflected prior convictions for methamphetamine 
manufacture, sale, and distribution.  Id.  Outdoor “open fields” 
observations of the defendant’s property were also conducted 
during which officers noticed a strong chemical odor emanating 
from the property and saw equipment suspiciously placed around the 
residence.  Id. at 267—68, 390 S.E.2d at 718.  Our Court held that 
the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress 
evidence gathered under the search warrant, finding that under a 
“totality of the circumstances” test, the search warrant affidavit 
-15- 
 
 
presented sufficiently corroborated and reliable information to 
establish probable cause. Id. at 270—71, 390 S.E.2d at 720—21.  
O’Kelly is relevant to our present matter, as the search 
warrant affidavit stated that the officers had observed gardening 
supplies and a greenhouse in disrepair on defendant’s property 
during an “open fields” observation of defendant’s property. 
However, under O’Kelly’s “totality of the circumstances” test such 
observations of gardening supplies are insufficient by themselves 
to permit the issuance of a search warrant.  Lt. Ferguson stated 
in the search warrant affidavit that he saw gardening supplies 
which were indicative of an indoor marijuana grow operation during 
his open fields observation of defendant’s property.  However, as 
defendant lived in a farming community and had a greenhouse, even 
though in disrepair, on his property, there is insufficient 
evidence simply based upon viewing used gardening supplies such as 
pots and bags of soil to conclude that a marijuana growing 
operation existed there.  Unlike in O’Kelly, where officers noticed 
a strong chemical odor emanating from the property and saw oddly 
placed equipment next to the house during their open fields 
observation, here officers noticed a marijuana smell and saw thick 
mil plastic covering the building doors from the inside only after 
they had entered the property.  As previously acknowledged by the 
-16- 
 
 
State, this entry was illegal and thus the marijuana smell and 
plastic coverings could not be properly considered in seeking a 
search warrant. 
Lt. Ferguson also appears to have relied upon Det. Hastings’ 
review of the utility report from Progress Energy for the search 
warrant as there is no evidence to indicate that the magistrate 
was presented with a copy of the utility report or that Lt. 
Ferguson himself reviewed the utility report.  In the suppression 
hearing, Det. Hastings testified that the allegation that the 
utility report indicated an indoor marijuana growing operation was 
based solely on his own belief.  Det. Hastings also acknowledged 
that the utility report was not compared to other utility reports 
for neighboring residences to show a discrepancy in defendant’s 
power usage and an expert opinion was not provided as to how likely 
it was that the utility report indicated the presence of an indoor 
marijuana growing operation on defendant’s property. As already 
noted, to establish probable cause for a search warrant, the 
requesting officer must demonstrate that the information contained 
in the affidavit in support of the search warrant is sufficiently 
reliable and not conclusory.  The trial court, in its Conclusion 
of Law 5, determined that 
[i]t was only after illegally entering onto 
the 
Defendant’s 
property 
and 
making 
-17- 
 
 
observations while illegally on the premises 
that “thick mil plastic” was [observed] around 
some of the doors of the white outbuilding and 
there 
was 
a 
“strong 
smell 
of 
growing 
marijuana” emanating from the same outbuilding 
that Lieutenant Ferguson decided to seek to 
obtain a search warrant. Clearly, Lieutenant 
Ferguson did not feel he had sufficient 
evidence gathered through the officers’ prior 
personal observations to provide the requisite 
“indicia of reliability” to corroborate the 
confidential informant and the power usage 
records from Progress Energy to establish 
probable cause for the issuance of a lawful 
search warrant for the Defendant’s premises 
because he included their observations after 
illegally 
entering 
onto 
the 
Defendant’s 
property 
in 
his 
sworn 
“Search 
Warrant 
Affidavit” for the search warrant which was 
submitted 
to 
and 
later 
issued 
by 
the 
magistrate on September 29, 2011 for a search 
of the Defendant’s property in this case.  
 
Based on the record before us, the trial court’s findings of 
fact, both challenged and unchallenged, are supported by competent 
evidence. Likewise, the trial court’s conclusions of law that the 
affidavit supporting the search warrant was not supported by 
probable cause is based on competent findings of fact.    
We affirm the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion 
to suppress. 
Affirmed.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge STEELMAN concurs. 
Judge HUNTER, Robert C., dissents by separate opinion.        
NO. COA13-305 
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS 
Filed: 3 December 2013 
 
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 
 
 
 
 
 
v. 
 
 
Vance County 
Nos. 11 CRS 52943-45 
GLENN EDWARD BENTERS, 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
 
 
HUNTER, Robert C., Judge, dissenting. 
 
The majority concludes that the trial court was correct in 
granting defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from the 
search because the search warrant affidavit lacked sufficient 
“indicia of reliability” to establish probable cause.  I agree 
that the affidavit did not contain a sufficient factual basis to 
establish probable cause under the confidential informant standard 
because the affiant did not detail why the source was reliable.  
However, I would find that under the anonymous tip standard, the 
affidavit contained detailed information provided by the source 
which was independently corroborated by experienced officers and 
therefore established probable cause for the search warrant’s 
issuance.  For the following reasons, I respectfully dissent. 
 This Court has traditionally used two standards to assess 
whether information provided by a third party may establish 
probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant: the 
 
 
 
-2- 
confidential informant standard and the anonymous tip standard.  
Under the confidential informant standard, a search warrant 
affidavit that states the affiant’s belief that the confidential 
informant is reliable and contains some factual circumstance on 
which that belief is based is sufficient on its own to establish 
probable cause.  State v. Campbell, 282 N.C. 125, 130-31, 191 
S.E.2d 752, 756 (1972).  However, “[p]robable cause cannot be shown 
by affidavits which are purely conclusory, stating only the 
affiant’s or an informer’s belief that probable cause exists 
without detailing any of the underlying circumstances upon which 
that belief is based.”  Id.  (internal quotation marks omitted).  
Under the anonymous tip standard, sufficient “indicia of 
reliability” to establish probable cause can be found if the source 
provided 
detailed 
information 
and 
that 
information 
was 
independently verified by the police.  State v. Lemonds, 160 N.C. 
App. 172, 179-80, 584 S.E.2d 841, 846 (2003); see also State v. 
Trapp, 110 N.C. App. 584, 589–90, 430 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1993) 
(anonymous source’s tip may provide probable cause if the details 
can be independently verified).  This Court has adopted a “totality 
of the circumstances” approach in determining whether probable 
cause exists in support of the issuance of a search warrant.  State 
v. Edwards, 185 N.C. App. 701, 704, 649 S.E.2d 646, 649 (2007).   
I agree with the majority that the trial court correctly 
 
 
 
-3- 
concluded that Lt. Ferguson’s description of the source’s 
reliability was merely conclusory, and therefore was insufficient 
to establish probable cause under the confidential informant 
standard.  However, I believe the search warrant affidavit 
contained sufficient “indicia of reliability” for the magistrate 
to find there was probable cause to issue the warrant under the 
anonymous tip standard.  
In Lemonds, this Court applied the anonymous tip standard and 
held that there was probable cause where a source alleged that the 
defendant was growing marijuana, and evidence gathered by the 
police independently corroborated the tip.  Lemonds, 160 N.C. App. 
at 179-80, 584 S.E.2d at 846.  Prior to seeking a search warrant, 
the police discovered power bills for the defendant’s residence 
that revealed electricity consumption patterns consistent with 
indoor marijuana-growing operations.  Id.  They also recovered 
equipment commonly used to grow marijuana from the defendant’s 
garbage, saw the defendant put this equipment in the garbage, and 
found marijuana residue on the equipment.  Id.  The Lemonds Court 
concluded, “[b]ased on the totality of the circumstances . . . the 
information before the magistrate . . . provided a ‘substantial 
basis’ for finding probable cause that defendant was maintaining 
an indoor marijuana-growing operation.”  Lemonds, 160 N.C. App. at 
180, 584 S.E.2d at 846.   
 
 
 
-4- 
I consider the facts as found by the trial court here 
analogous to those in Lemonds, and as such I believe there was 
sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for issuance of 
the search warrant under the anonymous tip standard.  Here, the 
court made the following findings of fact.  Det. Hastings and Lt. 
Ferguson began an investigation based on a source’s tip that 
defendant was growing marijuana in an indoor operation on his farm.  
Det. Hastings had been employed by the Franklin County Sheriff’s 
Department for approximately seven years at this time.  Based on 
the source’s information, Det. Hastings subpoenaed the power 
records for defendant’s property.  The records revealed excessive 
kilowatt usage, which Det. Hastings concluded was indicative of a 
marijuana-growing operation based on his extensive experience as 
a narcotics officer.  The officers then went to a lot adjacent to 
defendant’s property to conduct surveillance based on the source’s 
tip and the power records.  Before committing the illegal “knock 
and talk” entry onto defendant’s property, the officers identified 
a plethora of physical evidence indicating a growing operation, 
including potting soil, starting fertilizer, seed starting trays, 
plastic cups, metal storage racks, and pump sprayers.  No fields 
were in cultivation at the time the officers identified these 
materials, and the greenhouse on the property appeared to be in 
disrepair based on tears in the exterior and knee-deep weeds 
 
 
 
-5- 
surrounding it.   
All of this information found as fact by the trial court was 
included in the affidavit before the magistrate.  The affidavit 
also contained the statement by Lt. Ferguson that, based on his 
experience and training as a narcotics officer, the physical 
evidence identified on defendant’s property was indicative of an 
indoor marijuana-growing operation.  I would find that the source’s 
tip that defendant was growing marijuana in an indoor facility on 
his farm was independently verified by experienced officers 
through 
their 
analysis 
of 
defendant’s 
power 
records 
and 
observation of physical evidence indicative of a marijuana-growing 
operation that necessarily must have been occurring indoors, as 
the source indicated.  As such, based on the anonymous tip standard 
and the precedent set in Lemonds, I would find that there was a 
substantial basis to establish probable cause for the issuance of 
the warrant here. 
I conclude that the combination of the officers’ years of 
training, knowledge, and experience regarding narcotic and drug 
enforcement, as well as the independently verified utility records 
and personal observations of cultivation equipment at defendant’s 
farm, sufficiently corroborated the source’s tip and established 
probable cause to believe that there would be drugs and related 
paraphernalia at defendant’s address under an anonymous tip 
 
 
 
-6- 
standard.  See State v. Bone, 354 N.C. 1, 10, 550 S.E.2d 482, 488 
(2001) (holding that an officer may rely upon information received 
through a source “so long as the informant’s statement is 
reasonably corroborated by other matters within the officer’s 
knowledge”) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 940, 152 L. 
Ed. 2d 231 (2002); see also Edwards, 185 N.C. App. at 705, 649 
S.E.2d at 650 (holding that the affiant officer’s extensive 
experience weighed in favor of finding the magistrate had a 
substantial basis to conclude probable cause existed to issue a 
search warrant).  Thus, under the totality of the circumstances, 
the search warrant affidavit provided to the magistrate set forth 
sufficient facts for a reasonably discreet and prudent person to 
rely upon in determining that probable cause existed in support of 
the issuance of the search warrant.  See Edwards, 185 N.C. App. at 
704, 649 S.E.2d at 649 (“To establish probable cause, an affidavit 
for a search warrant must set forth such facts that a reasonably 
discreet and prudent person would rely upon[.]”) (citation and 
internal quotation marks omitted).  Accordingly, I would find the 
trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to suppress 
evidence, and I would reverse the trial court’s order.