Court Opinion

ID: 6732068
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 23:13:45.567181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:01:40.488718
License: Public Domain

MORRIS, Judge.
Defendant’s only assignment of error relates to the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence that was introduced at trial. He does not contest the validity of the original search, but argues that the subsequent search of his person violated his constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Defendant maintains that in these circumstances officers had *524the right either to search him immediately or take him to the courthouse, get a search warrant and then conduct a search. He argues that officers cannot be allowed to do both. We find no merit in this contention.
Defendant’s broad assertion is unsupported by applicable law, nor do we feel such a rule should be the law. In our opinion, to require the officers to make such an election under these circumstances would place too heavy a burden on law enforcement officers in the detection and investigation of criminal conduct. We conclude it would be neither reasonable nor practical to bind law enforcement officers to an election.
Additionally, we note that on voir dire the trial judge in this case made extensive findings of fact and based on these findings concluded as a matter of law that the search of the defendant was valid. “These findings of fact by the trial judge are conclusive when, as here, they are supported by competent evidence.” State v. Bass, 280 N.C. 435, 445, 186 S.E. 2d 384 (1972), and cases cited therein.
The trial judge’s findings in this case support the conclusion that the officers had reasonable ground to believe that a felony had been committed by the defendant and that he might escape if he were not carried to the Sheriff’s Department and a more extensive search conducted, the officer having testified and the court having found as a fact that because of the restricted area of the room and the size of the occupants, the body search conducted in the rest room was not a thorough search. The new or additional information received from the informer was additional reason for a more thorough search.
No error.
Judges Hedrick and Baley concur.