Court Opinion

ID: 9626763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:23:32.083241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:44.584928
License: Public Domain

Justice NEWBY
dissenting.
The issue presented in this case is whether the trial court reasonably determined that a brief and discreet look into defendant’s pants by a law enforcement officer of the same sex was within the scope of defendant’s second general consent to a search of his person for drugs. Federal constitutional law requires this decision to be made using a case by case factual analysis, such as the one conducted by the trial court. Although the majority agrees a case by case approach is appropriate, its analysis implies a general consent can never be sufficient. United States Supreme Court precedent does not permit such a general prohibition. The majority also wrongly applies that Court’s test by focusing on defendant’s perspective rather than that of a third party observer and incorrectly compares the consent search in this case to a probable cause search. Because the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that the visual inspection was within the scope of the second consent given in this case, I respectfully dissent.
As defendant has not objected to the trial court’s findings of fact, our review of this evidentiary ruling is limited to determining whether those factual findings support the trial court’s conclusions of law. State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 291 S.E.2d 618 (1982). This Court “accords great deference to the trial court in this respect because it is entrusted with the duty to hear testimony, weigh and resolve any conflicts in the evidence, find the facts, and, then based upon those findings, render a legal decision.” Id. at 134, 291 S.E.2d at 619-20. In contrast, “ ‘[t]he appellate court is much less favored because it sees only a cold, written record.’ ” Id. at 135, 291 S.E.2d at 620 (quoting *58State v. Smith, 278 N.C. 36, 41, 178 S.E.2d 597, 601, cert. denied, 403 U.S. 934, 91 S. Ct. 2266, 29 L. Ed. 2d 715 (1971)).
“The standard for measuring the scope of a suspect’s consent under the Fourth Amendment is that of ‘objective’ reasonableness— what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect?” Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251, 111 S. Ct. 1801, 1803-04, 114 L. Ed. 2d 297, 302 (1991) (citations omitted). In Jimeno, the United States Supreme Court addressed whether a search of a closed container found within the defendant’s vehicle was within the scope of defendant’s general consent to search the vehicle. Id. at 249-50, 111 S. Ct. at 1803, 114 L. Ed. 2d at 301-02. After noting that “[t]he scope of a search is generally defined by its expressed object,” the Court examined the exchange between the police officer and the defendant. Id. at 251, 111 S. Ct. at 1804, 114 L. Ed. 2d at 303 (citing United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 102 S. Ct. 2157, 72 L. Ed. 2d 572 (1982)). The Court specifically observed that the defendant “did not place any explicit limitation on the scope of the search,” that the officer informed the defendant he would be looking for narcotics in the defendant’s vehicle, and that “[a] reasonable person may be expected to know that narcotics are generally carried in some form of a container.” Id. In light of this exchange, the Court determined “it was objectively reasonable for the police to conclude that the general consent to search [the defendant’s] car included consent to search containers within that car which might bear drugs.” Id. No additional, specific consent was necessary.
As indicated by the trial court’s findings of fact, all of the factors the Supreme Court found relevant in Jimeno are present in this case. Officer Correa sought consent to search defendant for drugs, and defendant provided a general consent without any limitation. Moreover, just as “[a] reasonable person may be expected to know that narcotics are generally carried in some form of a container,” id., a reasonable person may be expected to understand that drug “[dealers frequently hide drugs near their genitals,” United States v. Rodney, 956 F.2d 295, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (citations omitted).
Additional aspects of the exchange between Officer Correa and defendant indicate that Officer Correa’s search was within the scope of defendant’s consent. Officer Correa recognized defendant because he had previously received an anonymous tip that defendant was a drug dealer. The search occurred shortly after 3:30 a.m. in an area known for illegal drugs, and the apartment complex parking lot was *59dark enough that Officer Correa needed to shine his spotlight on the car and use a flashlight to look inside defendant’s pants. As a result, the search was conducted in relative privacy.
Finally, defendant had opportunities to limit or withdraw his consent that were not present in Jimeno. After Officer Correa finished his initial pat-down and frisk of defendant, he talked to defendant about the large amount of money he found in defendant’s pocket. When Officer Correa requested permission to search defendant for a second time, defendant was given another opportunity to deny or limit consent, but did not. Officer Correa began his second search by looking in the back of defendant’s pants, then moved his hands from back to front along defendant’s waistband before looking in the front of defendant’s pants. Although he chose not to, defendant was free to withdraw or limit his consent for the second search at any time before Officer Correa noticed the pill bottle in defendant’s genital area. The majority asserts that defendant’s verbal response to the search shows Officer Correa’s action was unexpected. However, the trial court’s undisputed finding of fact states that defendant objected to the search only after the police officers spotted the container of drugs, not when Officer Correa began looking in defendant’s pants. As the trial court noted, “ [defendant's attempt to retract his consent to search occurred only after [Officer] Correa and [Officer] Herrera found the pill bottle hidden in [defendant's underwear.”
In short, after examining the exchange between Officer Correa and defendant, the trial court correctly determined that the search performed by Officer Correa was within the scope of defendant’s consent. It was objectively reasonable for Officer Correa to conclude defendant’s unlimited, general consent permitted a brief look into defendant’s pants during the second search. Under Jimeno, reasonableness must be determined based on an objective standard. 500 U.S. at 250-51, 111 S. Ct. at 1803-04, 114 L. Ed. 2d at 302; see Rodney, 956 F.2d at 297 (treating the “typical reasonable, person” referenced in Jimeno as an observer instead of the officer or the suspect). The majority incorrectly asserts that Jimeno requires the scope of consent to be determined from the perspective of the suspect. Asking what defendant, acting as a reasonable person, would have understood that his general consent to a search permitted is different from asking “what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect?” Jimeno, 500 U.S. at 251, 111 S. Ct. at 1803-04, 114 L. Ed. 2d at 302. Indeed, because a defendant who objects to a search as beyond the scope of *60his consent will always argue he did not understand his consent included the challenged search, it is difficult to comprehend how the majority’s standard is objective at all. The majority admits that its test includes consideration of defendant’s “subjective response” to the finding of drugs on his person. On the other hand, it could be readily maintained that, as a third party observer, the trial court is in the best position to determine the reasonableness of the search in light of the exchange. See Cooke, 306 N.C. at 134-35, 291 S.E.2d at 619-20.
Subsequent cases applying Jimeno confirm that the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that the search conducted here was within the scope of defendant’s general consent. In Rodney, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit applied Jimeno to a fact pattern involving the defendant’s general consent to search his body for drugs. The officer’s search, which was conducted outside a Washington, D.C. bus station, “involved a continuous sweeping motion over [the defendant’s] outer garments, including the trousers covering his crotch area.” Rodney, 956 F.2d at 296, 298. The officer felt “small, rock-like objects” in the defendant’s genital area which were eventually determined to be a cocaine base. Id. at 296. Although the court indicated a reluctance to apply Jimeno “unflinchingly” in the context of a search of a person, it concluded the defendant’s general consent to a body search for drugs authorized the search performed by the officer because “[d]ealers frequently hide drugs near their genitals” and the search was “no more invasive than the typical” Terry pat-down frisk for weapons. Id. at 297-98; see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968).
The majority distinguishes Rodney because that case involved a pat-down and frisk instead of a visual look. However, Rodney did not hold that only searches involving a thorough pat-down and frisk could be within the scope of a general consent. Instead, Rodney listed three types of searches that might fall into a more intrusive category requiring specific consent: full body cavity searches, searches involving “direct ‘ “frontal touching” ’ ” of the suspect’s genitals, and searches by police officers who are not of the same sex as the suspects. 956 F.2d at 298. Rodney did not conclude a search like the one conducted here should be considered intrusive enough to require specific consent.
The majority does not suggest that Rodney was incorrectly decided. Accordingly, the question arises whether looking into a suspect’s pants is more or less intrusive than touching a suspect’s genitals through clothing. The United States Court of Appeals for the *61Eleventh Circuit has addressed this issue. That court held that a search in a public airport terminal beginning with a frontal touching of a defendant’s genitals through clothing exceeded the scope of the general consent. United States v. Blake, 888 F.2d 795, 801 (11th Cir. 1989). However, in a later case, that court, bound by its precedent in Blake, concluded that “a brief and discreet look into the pants of a suspect by an officer of the same sex” did not exceed the scope of a general consent to search for drugs. Hudson v. Hall, 231 F.3d 1289, 1298 (11th Cir. 2000). Instead, Hudson distinguished the search in Blake as more intrusive than a quick look into a suspect’s pants. Id. Although Hudson was a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil suit, it directly addressed the question at issue in this case: whether a suspect’s general consent to a body search for drugs may include a consent to a brief look into the suspect’s pants. See Thirty-First Annual Review of Criminal Procedure, 90 Geo. L.J. 1087, 1176 n.246 (2002) (citing Hudson as applicable in the criminal context for the proposition that “when no limit [is] placed on consent to search [a] person for drugs or weapons, police can search where drugs and weapons [are] kept on [the] person, including inside defendant’s pants”); see also Kidd v. Commonwealth, 38 Va. App. 433, 447, 565 S.E.2d 337, 344 (2002) (finding a suspect’s general consent to a search of his body permitted the officer to pull away the suspect’s underwear and look inside).
The majority opinion provides no application of the facts of this case to the factors found relevant in Jimeno and the federal cases applying it. Instead, it compares Officer Correa’s search with the search conducted in State v. Smith, 342 N.C. 407, 464 S.E.2d 45 (1995), rev’g per curiam 118 N.C. App. 106, 454 S.E.2d 680 (1995), cert. denied 517 U.S. 1189, 116 S. Ct. 1676, 134 L. Ed. 2d 779 (1996), a case involving a probable cause search. This comparison is not useful because as the majority correctly contends elsewhere in its opinion, Smith is inapposite. Resolution of this case hinges on whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that Officer Correa’s search of defendant was within the scope of defendant’s consent, not whether the search would have been reasonable if based on probable cause.1
*62The majority also implies its decision is limited to the facts of this case. In actuality, the majority’s analysis is far reaching and effectively dictates that a brief and discreet look into a suspect’s pants can never be within the scope of that suspect’s general consent to a search for drugs. The majority states “different actions by the'officer could have led to a different result” and then suggests several different actions Officer Correa could have taken. The majority believes Officer Correa should have taken steps to shield defendant from onlookers or taken defendant to a “secluded area” or a police station even though there is no evidence that anyone was present during the search besides the two male officers, the defendant, and the driver; and the trial court specifically stated there was “no opportunity for onlookers.” Further, the majority believes Officer Correa should have asked defendant to clarify the scope his consent. Finally, the majority might have reached a different result if Officer Correa had specific information that drugs were hidden in defendant’s genital area.
It appears the majority believes a brief and discreet look into a suspect’s pants would be within the scope of a general consent to a search for drugs only if: 1) the officer obtains the suspect’s specific consent to go to a secluded area or police station; 2) the officer obtains the suspect’s specific consent to conduct a visual inspection; or 3) the officer has probable cause to search the suspect. Rather than conducting a case by case factual analysis of the scope of the general consent given by defendant, the majority has determined that in all cases involving a brief and discreet look into a suspect’s pants, the United States Constitution requires specific consent or probable cause. This approach is inconsistent with federal precedent.
In conclusion, the trial court’s findings of fact support its conclusion of law that Officer Correa’s search of defendant was within the scope of defendant’s consent.
Chief Justice PARKER joins in this dissenting opinion.

. Moreover, assuming arguendo that it is helpful to compare Officer Correa’s search to the search in Smith, the majority incorrectly suggests the search in Smith was more private. In Smith, the officer initially used his own body and a car door to shield the defendant from public view. 118 N.C. App. at 109, 454 S.E.2d at 682. However, when the defendant refused to cooperate, the officer “ ‘walked to the front of [defendant] and held open his underwear . . . and slid it down.’ ” Id. (alterations in original). After noticing a small paper towel under the defendant’s scrotum the officer “ ‘pulled his underwear farther.’ ” Id. More importantly, the search this Court found *62reasonable in Smith, when it reversed the Court of Appeals opinion to the contrary, occurred at 1:30 a.m. in the left turn lane of an intersection. Id. I cannot agree with the majority that a 3:30 a.m. search in a private apartment complex parking lot is less private than a 1:30 a.m. search in a street intersection. Especially when the first search involves a look into the suspect’s pants, but the second search involves sliding down the suspect’s underwear.