State v. Brown
248 N.C. App. 72, 787 S.E.2d 81, 2016 N.C. App. LEXIS 656 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A search warrant affidavit fails to establish probable cause if it omits the timeframe in which an informant observed the alleged criminal activity, thereby making it impossible for a magistrate to determine if the information is stale.
Facts:
- An informant provided Detective Kevin Putnam of the Gastonia Police Department with a counterfeit $100 bill.
- The informant claimed to have obtained the bill from Don Newton Brown's residence at 1232 North Ransom Street.
- The informant also claimed to have seen firearms, including a handgun, at Brown's residence.
- On November 26, 2012, Detective Putnam applied for a search warrant for Brown's residence.
- The affidavit submitted by Putnam stated that he had spoken with the informant 'in the past 48 hours.'
- The affidavit did not state when the informant had obtained the counterfeit bill or seen the firearms at Brown's home.
- A magistrate issued a search warrant based on Putnam's application and affidavit.
- Police executed the search warrant at Brown's residence and found incriminating items.
Procedural Posture:
- Based on evidence found during a search of his residence, Don Newton Brown was indicted in Gaston County Superior Court.
- Brown filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the search warrant was invalid because the information in the affidavit was stale.
- The Superior Court (trial court) held a suppression hearing where the applying officer, Detective Putnam, testified about his intent in writing the affidavit.
- The trial court denied Brown's motion to suppress.
- Brown subsequently entered a guilty plea but specifically reserved his right to appeal the trial court's denial of his suppression motion.
- Brown appealed the trial court's suppression order to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a search warrant affidavit that states when an informant spoke to police, but fails to specify when the informant observed the alleged criminal activity, provide sufficient probable cause to support the issuance of the warrant?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephens, J.
No. A search warrant affidavit does not provide probable cause if it lacks information about when an informant's observations occurred, as this makes it impossible to assess whether the information is timely or stale. The court's review of a magistrate's decision to issue a warrant is confined to the information presented within the 'four corners' of the affidavit and any contemporaneously recorded notes. In this case, the trial court erred by considering Detective Putnam's subsequent testimony at the suppression hearing about what he intended the affidavit to convey. The affidavit only established that Putnam spoke to the informant within 48 hours of the application, not when the informant witnessed the criminal activity. This omission is fatal, as probable cause must exist at the time the warrant is issued. Citing State v. Newcomb, the court found this to be a 'bare-bones affidavit' that merely asserts the informant saw illicit items 'at some time,' which is insufficient. Because the affidavit failed to provide any facts to prevent the information from being stale, it could not support a finding of probable cause.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the importance of the staleness doctrine in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, emphasizing that probable cause is a time-sensitive concept. The ruling solidifies the 'four corners' rule for reviewing search warrant affidavits, preventing courts from rehabilitating a deficient affidavit with after-the-fact testimony. For law enforcement, this case serves as a crucial reminder of the need for precision in drafting warrant applications, specifically by including the timeframe of an informant's observations. For magistrates, it underscores their duty to act as a neutral check, ensuring that an affidavit provides a substantial basis to believe evidence of a crime is currently located at the place to be searched, rather than simply ratifying police conclusions.
