State v. Jackson
368 N.C. 75 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the totality of the circumstances, a police officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop when an individual is observed in a specific location known for hand-to-hand drug transactions and repeatedly disperses upon the sight of a marked police vehicle, only to reconvene shortly after.
Facts:
- On the evening of April 9, 2012, Officer Timothy Brown was patrolling an area surrounding Kim's Mart, a location he personally knew was the site of frequent hand-to-hand drug transactions.
- At approximately 9:00 p.m., Officer Brown observed Tiyoun Jimek Jackson and another individual, Curtis Benton, standing together outside the store.
- Upon seeing Officer Brown's marked patrol vehicle, Jackson and Benton immediately separated and walked in opposite directions.
- Officer Brown drove past, made a U-turn, and upon returning to Kim's Mart, saw that Jackson and Benton had reconvened and were again standing together.
- As Officer Brown approached the store for a second time, Jackson and Benton again separated and began walking away from each other in opposite directions.
- Officer Brown then stopped Jackson, telling him to place his hands on the car for a frisk, and asked for consent to search.
- During the encounter, Jackson placed a loaded handgun on the hood of the patrol car.
- A separate search of Benton revealed marijuana packaged in multiple small plastic bags.
Procedural Posture:
- Tiyoun Jimek Jackson was indicted for possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of a firearm with an altered serial number, and conspiracy to possess with intent to sell or deliver marijuana.
- Jackson filed a motion to suppress the evidence in the trial court, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the initial stop.
- The trial court denied Jackson's motion to suppress.
- Jackson pleaded guilty to the charges but reserved his right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion.
- Jackson, as the appellant, appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion.
- The State, as the appellant, appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals 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 the combination of a person's presence at a specific location known for drug transactions and their repeated evasive act of dispersing upon seeing a police car, regrouping, and dispersing again, establish the necessary reasonable suspicion for a lawful investigatory stop under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hudson
Yes, the combination of these factors establishes reasonable suspicion for a lawful investigatory stop. The court applied the totality of the circumstances standard, emphasizing that reasonable suspicion requires more than a mere 'hunch' but less than probable cause. The court's reasoning did not rely on any single factor but on the combination of several key facts: 1) the stop occurred in a 'high crime area' specifically known for hand-to-hand drug transactions, a relevant contextual consideration under Illinois v. Wardlow; 2) the individuals' repeated and evasive behavior, specifically, dispersing upon sight of the police, regrouping when they thought the officer had left, and dispersing again upon the officer's return. The court concluded that this pattern of behavior, observed by an officer with training and experience in narcotics enforcement, went beyond an inchoate suspicion and provided a 'particularized and objective basis' for suspecting that Jackson was engaged in criminal activity.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that while presence in a high-crime area alone is insufficient for reasonable suspicion, it is a highly relevant factor when combined with other suspicious conduct. The court's emphasis on the repeated 'disperse-regroup-disperse' pattern provides a clear factual template for what constitutes evasive behavior rising to the level of reasonable suspicion. This case clarifies the 'totality of the circumstances' analysis by demonstrating how seemingly innocent acts, when viewed collectively in a specific context by a trained officer, can justify a Fourth Amendment seizure. It serves as a strong precedent for justifying investigatory stops in similar situations involving patterns of evasive conduct in locations known for specific types of crime.
