Court Opinion

ID: 9584001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:43:43.857366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:06:26.197117
License: Public Domain

Judge WELLS
dissenting.
I begin my analysis of this case with the conclusion that Officer Cruzan’s accusatory question: “. . . [Do] you have dope in here or on you?” constituted a “seizure” invoking defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. *308544, 64 L.Ed. 2d 497, 100 S.Ct. 1870 (1980). We may take judicial notice of the fact that Cruzan, a State Highway Patrolman, was in uniform and armed. The accusation directed by him at defendant was sufficient to give rise to a reasonable apprehension by defendant that he was at least being detained for investigation. Officer Cruzan’s initial intrusion into defendant’s privacy was justified only if Cruzan could reasonably suspect that criminal activity was afoot requiring an investigation of defendant’s conduct. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L.Ed. 2d 889, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (1968). See also Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 65 L.Ed. 2d 890, 100 S.Ct. 2752 (1980); State v. Thompson, 296 N.C. 703, 252 S.E. 2d 776 (1979); State v. McZorn, 288 N.C. 417, 219 S.E. 2d 201 (1975); State v. Streeter, 283 N.C. 203, 195 S.E. 2d 502 (1973). The dispositive question then is whether at the time he began his investigation, Cruzan had reasonable grounds to suspect that defendant was illegally in actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance, the crime for which he was arrested and indicted. At the time Cruzan accused defendant of possession, defendant had been sitting quietly in the car for twenty or thirty minutes, was physically ill, and showed symptoms of being either ill or under the influence of some drug or narcotic substance. I do not believe that defendant’s statements that he was sick, combined with his physical .appearance, gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that defendant illegally possessed a controlled substance, and therefore I would hold that the original intrusion of defendant’s privacy rights was invalid. Cruzan’s observation of the corner of the plastic bag flowed from, this initial invalid intrusion. I cannot agree that Cruzan’s right to be where he was, i.e., at the side of the stopped car, gave him the right to initiate a warrantless search for controlled substances.
I would hold that the incriminating evidence seized by Cruzan should have been suppressed and that defendant is therefore entitled to a new trial.