Opinion ID: 1009565
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Impersonating an Officer

Text: Under North Carolina law, the crime of impersonating an officer is defined in relevant part as follows: (a) No person shall falsely represent to another that he is a sworn law-enforcement officer. As used in this section, a person represents that he is a sworn law- enforcement officer if he:
law-enforcement officer, whether or not the representation refers to a particular agency; (2) Displays any badge or identification signifying to a reasonable individual that the person is a sworn law-enforcement officer, whether or not the badge or other identification refers to a particular law–enforcement agency. N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-277(a) (Lexis 2001); see also State v. Chisholm, 369 S.E.2d 375, 378 (N.C. App. 1988) (To have convicted defendant . . . under [§]14-277 the jury was required to find that defendant represented himself as a sworn law-enforcement officer to another.). Considering the totality of the circumstances of which Whitesides had knowledge at the time, we find that there was sufficient information to justify a reasonable belief that Gantt had violated § 14-277(a). First, Whitesides had been informed at a shift meeting that the Sheriff’s Office had received calls from residents reporting that an individual was impersonating a law enforcement officer and was attempting to sell alarm systems. Second, the individual was identified as Gantt. Third, Brown’s incident report stated that Gantt had represented himself to a local resident as a law enforcement officer to sell alarm systems.5 (J.A. at 190-91.) Fourth, Diggs’s incident report stated that 5 There is uncontested evidence that Whitesides reviewed Diggs’s and Brown’s incident reports before seeking an arrest warrant. (J.A. at 71920.) 10 GANTT v. WHITAKER Gantt told the Allens that he worked for the Sheriff’s Office. (J.A. at 189.) Fifth, according to Diggs’s incident report, the Allens had observed a gold star emblem on the outside of Gantt’s briefcase. Sixth, Whitesides personally observed a pretty big gold star emblem, marked with the words Sheriff’s Association on the outside of Gantt’s briefcase. (J.A. at 723.) The briefcase contained a demonstration kit for alarm systems and receipts from the sale of alarm systems, making it more likely than not that Gantt carried the bag with him while attempting to sell alarm systems. Regardless of whether this evidence is sufficient to support a conviction under § 14277(a), the evidence is sufficient to establish probable cause to believe that Gantt had violated the provision.6 B. Attempting to Sell Alarm Systems Without a License North Carolina General Statute § 74D-2 makes it a crime for a person or entity to engage in or hold itself out as engaging in an alarm systems business without first being licensed in accordance with this Chapter. N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 74D-2 (Lexis 2001). Gantt admitted to Whitesides that he was selling alarm systems door-to-door without a license, and this admission was further corroborated by the contents of Gantt’s briefcase. Thus, the only issue is whether Whitesides had probable cause to believe that Gantt was engaged in or holding himself out as engaged in an alarm systems business. 6 Gantt also alleges that Whitesides violated his Fourth Amendment rights by intentionally lying to the magistrate and claiming that Gantt had displayed his Sheriff Association membership card. Because Gantt’s display of his Sheriff Association membership card was not necessary to the finding of probable cause, and thus the issuance of a warrant, see supra text pp. 9-10, Whitesides did not violate Gantt’s Fourth Amendment rights even if Gantt’s allegation is true, see Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155 (1978) (holding that, to show a violation of defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights during the warrant process, defendant must make a substantial showing that an affiant for an arrest warrant knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly included a false statement and that the allegedly false statement [wa]s necessary to the finding of probable cause); United States v. Akinkoye, 185 F.3d 192, 199 (4th Cir. 1999) (finding no Franks violation because probable cause existed without the allegedly false identifications). GANTT v. WHITAKER 11 An alarm systems business is defined in pertinent part by statute as any person . . . which [sic] sells or attempts to sell by engaging in a personal solicitation at a residence . . . when combined with personal inspection of the interior of the residence . . . to advise on specific types and specific locations of alarm system devices, installs, services, monitors or responds to electrical, electronic or mechanical alarm signal devices, burglar alarms, television cameras or still cameras used to detect burglary, breaking or entering, intrusion, shoplifting, pilferage, or theft. Id. Gantt notes that the North Carolina Alarm Licensing Board ultimately concluded that he was not inspecting the interior of residences and, therefore, did not need a license to sell his alarm systems. This fact, however, is of little consequence, in that evidence sufficient to find an individual guilty of an offense is not required to establish probable cause. Porterfield, 156 F.3d at 569. From the incident reports, Whitesides’s interview with Gantt, and Whitesides’s personal inspection of Gantt’s briefcase, Whitesides reasonably believed that Gantt was entering residents’ homes in connection with the sale and installation of alarm systems, and Whitesides also reasonably believed that Gantt had demonstrated the alarm system inside the Allens’ residence. A reasonable person could logically assume that the installation and/or demonstration of the alarm system involved some inspection of the residence as well as advice on the type or proper location for the alarm system. Thus, the information possessed by Whitesides at the time of the arrest was sufficient to justify his belief that Gantt had violated § 74D-2. C. Obtaining Property By False Pretenses The elements of the crime of obtaining property by false pretenses are: (1) a false representation of a past or subsisting fact or a future fulfillment or event; (2) which is calculated and intended to deceive; (3) which does in fact deceive; and (4) by which the defendant obtains or attempts to obtain something of value from another. N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-100 (Lexis 2001); State v. Hutchinson, 532 S.E.2d 569, 573 (N.C. App. 2000). As detailed above, Whitesides had reli12 GANTT v. WHITAKER able information that Gantt was representing himself as a law enforcement officer in an attempt to sell alarm systems. Whitesides could reasonably conclude that this representation was false and was calculated to deceive for the purpose of obtaining money from potential customers. Diggs’s report indicated that the Allens gave Gantt a deposit for the purchase of an alarm system, which provides a reasonable inference that they were in fact deceived by Gantt’s false representation that he worked for the Sheriff’s Office. Thus, Whitesides possessed probable cause to believe that Gantt had violated § 14-100. Because Whitesides possessed probable cause to arrest Gantt for each of the charged offenses, Gantt cannot establish any unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.7 Having concluded that Gantt has not demonstrated any constitutional violation, it becomes unnecessary to consider whether the right at issue was clearly established such that it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202.