State v. Johnson
783 S.E.2d 753, 2016 WL 1319083, 246 N.C.App. 677 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the totality of the circumstances, a police officer may extend a valid traffic stop and conduct a protective frisk of a passenger if the officer develops a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and dangerous.
Facts:
- Officer Matthew Ward initiated a traffic stop of a truck driven by Todd Waters for an expired license plate, in which Taseen Tyree Johnson was a passenger.
- During the stop, Officer Ward observed multiple cell phones and an unusually placed vehicle computer system (a "PCM" device) inside the truck.
- Both Waters and Johnson appeared extremely nervous, exhibited rapid breathing, and provided inconsistent and vague answers to basic questions about their travel.
- After Officer Ward issued a citation for the traffic violation, he asked Waters to exit the vehicle for additional questioning.
- Deputy Peter Arnold, who had arrived to assist, observed a five-by-seven-inch rectangular bulge in Johnson's crotch area under his loose-fitting shorts.
- When Deputy Arnold asked Johnson to identify the bulge, Johnson responded that it was his testicles.
- Believing the object could be a handgun, Deputy Arnold ordered Johnson out of the truck to perform a protective frisk for officer safety.
- When Deputy Arnold touched the bulge, a Ziploc bag containing heroin fell from Johnson's shorts.
Procedural Posture:
- Taseen Tyree Johnson was charged in trial court with two counts of trafficking opium or heroin and other drug-related offenses.
- Johnson filed a motion to suppress the heroin evidence, arguing it was obtained through an unconstitutional search and seizure.
- The trial court conducted a suppression hearing and entered an order denying Johnson's motion.
- Following the denial, Johnson entered a guilty plea but reserved his right to appeal the trial court's ruling on the motion to suppress.
- Johnson (appellant) appealed the trial court's 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 protective frisk of a vehicle passenger violate the Fourth Amendment when it is conducted during a traffic stop that was extended based on the occupants' extreme nervousness, inconsistent answers, and an officer's observation of a large, unidentified bulge in the passenger's shorts?
Opinions:
Majority - Calabria, J.
No, the protective frisk does not violate the Fourth Amendment because it was justified by reasonable suspicion. The court's reasoning proceeded in two parts. First, the extension of the traffic stop beyond its initial purpose was constitutional because the totality of the circumstances created a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. These circumstances included the occupants' extreme nervousness, their conflicting and evasive answers, and the unusual placement of the PCM device in the vehicle's passenger compartment. Second, the subsequent protective frisk of Johnson was justified because the officer had a reasonable belief he might be armed and dangerous. This belief was supported by the large, rectangular bulge in Johnson's crotch, his implausible explanation for it, and the other suspicious factors already observed, creating a specific and articulable basis for the officer to fear for his safety.
Analysis:
This case provides a clear application of the two-part Terry analysis to traffic stops, distinguishing the justification needed to extend the stop from the justification needed to conduct a frisk. It reinforces the principle that reasonable suspicion is based on the 'totality of the circumstances,' where a collection of individually innocuous facts can, when viewed together by an experienced officer, support a finding of potential criminal activity. The decision highlights how extreme nervousness, evasive answers, and suspicious objects contribute to this analysis, and it confirms that an officer's reasonable fear for safety, prompted by a suspicious bulge and an incredible explanation, can justify a protective pat-down.
