State v. Butler
331 N.C. 227, 415 S.E.2d 719, 1992 N.C. LEXIS 206 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The totality of the circumstances, including a person's presence in a specific location known for high criminal activity and their evasive behavior upon sight of law enforcement, can provide the reasonable, articulable suspicion necessary under the Fourth Amendment to justify an investigatory stop and a protective frisk for weapons.
Facts:
- On July 29, 1989, the defendant purchased a .12 gauge shotgun from a pawnshop in Fayetteville.
- On August 18, 1989, the defendant was at a club called Studio 41 where the owner refused to sell him food because he lacked sufficient funds.
- Glenda Sue Love attempted to mediate on the defendant's behalf but was unsuccessful.
- Minutes later in the club's parking lot, the defendant fired a shotgun, killing Glenda Sue Love and injuring Darnell Singletary, Laura Locklear, and Kenny Earl Smith.
- Darnell Singletary testified that the defendant shot Love and him, and after Singletary yelled at him, the defendant stepped closer and shot again.
- On October 11, 1989, in Tampa, Florida, police officer Ernesto Hedges observed the defendant standing with a group on a street corner known as a 'drug hole.'
- Upon making eye contact with Officer Hedges and his partner, the defendant immediately turned and walked away.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was indicted in a North Carolina trial court for first-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon.
- Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, and assault with a deadly weapon.
- The trial court entered judgments sentencing the defendant to life imprisonment for the murder and consecutive prison terms for the assaults.
- The defendant appealed his convictions directly to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, the state's highest court.
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 an investigatory stop and frisk violate the Fourth Amendment when it is based on the totality of circumstances, including the defendant's presence on a street corner known for drug trafficking, his immediate departure upon making eye contact with police, and the officer's experience that individuals involved in drug activity are often armed?
Opinions:
Majority - Whichard, Justice
No, the investigatory stop and frisk does not violate the Fourth Amendment. A police officer may conduct a brief, investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, based on the totality of the circumstances. Here, the officer's suspicion was justified by a combination of factors: the defendant was in a specific area known for high drug activity which the officer had under surveillance; the defendant was a stranger to the officers; and the defendant immediately engaged in evasive behavior by walking away after making eye contact with the uniformed officers. The court distinguished this case from others where mere presence in a high-crime area was insufficient, emphasizing that the defendant's flight was a critical additional factor. Given the reasonable suspicion for the stop and the officer's experience that drug traffickers are often armed, the subsequent protective frisk was also lawful. Therefore, the evidence obtained after the lawful stop and arrest—the pawnshop receipt and the defendant's spontaneous statements—was not the fruit of an illegal search and was properly admitted.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the 'totality of the circumstances' test for establishing reasonable suspicion under Terry v. Ohio. It clarifies that while a single factor like presence in a high-crime area is insufficient, it can become sufficient when combined with other articulable facts, such as unprovoked flight or other evasive conduct. The case gives significant weight to an officer's practical experience in assessing the link between certain criminal activities, like drug trafficking, and the likelihood of a suspect being armed. This precedent provides lower courts with a clear framework for aggregating multiple, seemingly innocent facts to justify an investigatory detention and protective search.
