State v. Lewis
372 N.C. 576, 831 S.E.2d 37 (2019)
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 essential facts connecting the place to be searched with the criminal activity, even if the applying officer possessed such information. Probable cause must be established within the 'four corners' of the sworn affidavit presented to the magistrate.
Facts:
- On September 21, 2014, a man robbed a Family Dollar in Hoke County and fled in a dark blue Nissan Titan.
- Two more similar robberies occurred in Hoke County on September 26 and September 28, 2014, committed by a man with the same description.
- On October 19, 2014, a fourth, similar robbery occurred in Johnston County, and an officer identified the suspect as Robert Dwayne Lewis as he fled in a dark gray Kia Optima.
- Johnston County police notified the Hoke County Sheriff's Office that Lewis was the suspect and that the Kia Optima was registered to an address at 7085 Laurinburg Road.
- On the same day, Deputy Kavanaugh of Hoke County observed a blue Nissan Titan at the 7085 Laurinburg Road address in the morning, and later saw both the Nissan Titan and a dark gray Kia Optima there in the afternoon.
- Deputy Kavanaugh arrested Lewis at the address after Lewis exited the house. Lewis's stepfather, Waddell McCollum, then told the deputy that Lewis lived at the residence and sometimes drove the Nissan Titan.
- After the arrest, Deputy Kavanaugh looked through the window of the Kia Optima and saw a BB&T money bag and dark clothing in plain view.
Procedural Posture:
- Detective Tart of the Hoke County Sheriff's Office obtained a search warrant for the residence at 7085 Laurinburg Road and two vehicles.
- Evidence was seized from the Kia Optima pursuant to the warrant.
- Robert Lewis was indicted in both Hoke and Johnston counties on charges including robbery with a dangerous weapon.
- Lewis filed motions to suppress the evidence in the Superior Courts for both counties, arguing the warrant lacked probable cause.
- The Superior Court, Hoke County, denied the motion to suppress after a hearing.
- Lewis entered conditional Alford pleas in both counties, preserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
- Lewis, the appellant, appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals held that the warrant was valid for the vehicles but invalid for the residence, and it vacated Lewis's convictions.
- The State, as petitioner, and Lewis, as petitioner, both sought and were granted discretionary review by the Supreme Court of North Carolina on the residence and vehicle search issues, respectively.
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 establish probable cause to search a residence and a vehicle when the affidavit fails to state that the suspect resides at the address or that the vehicle, linked to a recent crime, was observed at that location?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Davis
No. The search warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause to search either the residence or the Kia Optima because it omitted critical connecting facts. For the residence, the affidavit did not state that Lewis lived there or provide any other information linking the home to criminal activity beyond the fact he was arrested there, rendering the warrant invalid under the principles of State v. Campbell. For the Kia Optima, the affidavit, while noting Lewis used a Kia in a robbery, crucially failed to state that the Kia Optima was present at the Laurinburg Road address. While an unsworn attachment listed the Kia's details, the sworn affidavit itself must contain the facts establishing probable cause, and its failure to place the vehicle at the scene of the search was a fatal defect.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Morgan
No as to the residence, Yes as to the vehicle. While the affidavit was insufficient to search the residence, the majority's conclusion regarding the Kia Optima is hypertechnical and ignores the mandate to interpret affidavits with common sense. The magistrate was presented with a sworn affidavit and an unsworn attachment detailing the specific Kia Optima to be searched. A practical, common-sense evaluation of the entire application package provided a sufficient basis to infer that the Kia, used in a recent robbery by the suspect arrested at the location, would contain evidence. Invalidating the warrant based on the information being in an attachment rather than the body of the affidavit elevates form over substance.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the 'four corners' doctrine, strictly limiting a magistrate's probable cause determination to the sworn facts within the affidavit itself. The decision serves as a critical reminder to law enforcement that the omission of key linking information, such as the location of a vehicle to be searched, is a fatal flaw that cannot be cured by the officer's independent knowledge or by unsworn attachments. This precedent tightens the requirements for affidavit drafting, potentially making it harder to uphold warrants that are factually deficient, and emphasizes that a sufficient nexus between crime, evidence, and location must be explicitly stated in the sworn document.
