Court Opinion

ID: 9852164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:25:50.076796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:23.553279
License: Public Domain

Justice Higgins
dissenting.
Certain parts of the evidence which I deem material are not referred to in the Court’s opinion.
At the time here involved, 2:45 in the morning, Officer Bullock and a companion were on routine patrol, not investigating any particular offense and not in search of any suspect for any offense. Officer Bullock testified: “When I first observed the defendant he was on West Fifth Street. He was approximately five feet from the road pavement. ... I stopped the defendant because he turned around and looked at me and looked back. I didn’t see who it was and at that time of the morning I thought it was my job to see who it was. I did not ask permission to search the defendant before I touched that object. The shirt came down over the object and I could not see anything. The bulge was on the right hand side on his hip. ... I thought the object underneath the defendant’s shirt was a gun. I thought it was a gun by instinct.”
The officer further testified that the first object he removed from the defendant’s pocket was a glove. He testified that the object he touched was a screwdriver. After finding the object in the defendant’s pocket was not a pistol, he continued the search and removed another glove, a pry bar, a flashlight, and a money bag from the defendant’s pocket. These objects were offered in evidence over the defendant’s objection. Their admissibility, of course, depended on the legal validity of the search which produced them.
Every citizen has a constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Neither the lawmaking body, nor the Court can take the right away. A seizure of the person takes place when the law enforcement officer by physical force or show of authority curtails the liberty of the citizen to go and come as he pleases. Before the officer places a hand on the person of a citizen in search of anything, he must have constitutionally adequate ground for doing so. Terry v. Ohio, 392 *212U.S. 1. A lawful search, of the person may be made in two instances: (1) Where the officer has a valid warrant; (2) where a protective search is made incident to a lawful arrest without a warrant. In a later case the Supreme Court of the United States in Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, states the rule: “In the case of the self-protective search for weapons, he [officer] must be able to point to particular facts from which he reasonably inferred that the individual was armed and dangerous.”
In the case now before us, the hour was 2:45 a.m. The defendant was on a public street in Greenville. There was no curfew in effect. The defendant looked at the officers as they approached. This fact the officer cites as one of the reasons why he became suspicious and considered it his duty to investigate further. Obviously, at the time and under the circumstances it would have been more suspicious if the defendant had refused to look in the direction of the officers. When the officers stopped and interrogated the defendant, Officer Bullock saw a bulge in the defendant’s hip pocket. Without permission he placed his hand on the object, found it was metal, and proceeded to search, ascertaining that the metal object was a screwdriver. At this juncture it would seem that the officer should have been satisfied that his instinct had misled him. However, instead he proceeded to continue the search, emptying the defendant’s pockets. This sort of search is described by the Supreme Court of the United States in these words: “A general exploratory rummaging.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 29 L.Ed. 2d 564.
Nowhere have I been able to find where a court has approved a search with so little factual background. The cases where the court has approved a search have been connected with recent violations of the law and the persons searched were in close proximity thereto. In Robinson v. Commonwealth, 207 Ky. 53, the arresting officer could see the outlines of a pistol and identified it as such on the person of the defendant. In Banks v. Commonwealth, 202 Ky. 762, the officer heard shots, thereafter saw a bulge in the defendant’s pocket, arrested him, and obtained the pistol. In U. S. v. Lee, 271 A. 2d 566, the defendant was observed outside a store which had been robbed. The police asked for his identification and when he reached for his wallet, they noticed a bulge under his shirt, frisked him, and found the pistol. In Williams v. State, 253 A. 2d 786, officers *213stopped a suspect who was leaving the scene of a homicide. He matched the description given and when the officer noticed a bulge, he searched and found a pistol.
Though not raised in the record or discussed in the briefs is the question whether the objects found on the defendant are within the proper definition of burglary tools or implements of housebreaking and whether the defendant possessed them without lawful, excuse. The defendant testified he was on his way to Samuel Dixon’s house. All the tools are suitable to legitimate use. State v. Morgan, 268 N.C. 214, 150 S.E. 2d 377; State v. Garrett, 263 N.C. 773, 140 S.E. 2d 315. A small pry bar is in general use in practically every home as a bottle or can opener. If we concede the implements may be within the contained classification, their discovery cannot be used to authorize a search for a pistol. “Such unlawful search is not made lawful because of resulting discoveries.” State v. McCloud, 276 N.C. 518, 173 S.E. 2d 753. See also Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 6 L.Ed. 2d 1081.
I vote to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Chief Justice Bobbitt joins in this dissenting opinion.