State v. Malachi
825 S.E.2d 666, 264 N.C. App. 233 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An anonymous tip identifying a person with a gun, while insufficient on its own, can provide the basis for reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop and frisk when combined with a suspect's evasive actions upon the arrival of law enforcement.
Facts:
- The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department received a 911 call from an anonymous caller reporting that an African American male in a red shirt and black pants had placed a handgun in his waistband in a gas station parking lot.
- Officer Ethan Clark arrived in a marked police car and uniform and observed Terance Germaine Malachi, who matched the caller's description.
- Upon making eye contact with Officer Clark, Malachi turned his body away in a manner known as 'blading' to conceal his side from the officer's view.
- Immediately after 'blading,' Malachi began to walk away from Officer Clark.
- Officer Clark and another officer, Officer Van Aken, immediately approached Malachi and grabbed his arms.
- After handcuffing Malachi, Officer Van Aken frisked him and discovered a revolver in his right hip waistband.
Procedural Posture:
- Terance Germaine Malachi was charged in trial court with possession of a firearm by a felon.
- Malachi filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence of the revolver, arguing the stop and frisk were unconstitutional.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
- At a jury trial, the state introduced the revolver as evidence without objection from Malachi.
- The jury found Malachi guilty of possession of a firearm by a felon.
- Malachi appealed his conviction to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court committed plain error by admitting the evidence from the search.
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 officer's investigatory stop and frisk based on an anonymous tip combined with a suspect's evasive actions violate the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Inman, J.
No, an officer's investigatory stop and frisk based on an anonymous tip combined with a suspect's evasive actions does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Under the totality of the circumstances, these combined factors can establish the reasonable suspicion required for a constitutional stop and frisk. The court reasoned that while Supreme Court precedent in Florida v. J.L. establishes that an anonymous tip lacking indicia of reliability is insufficient by itself to justify a stop, this case presented additional corroborating facts. The court found that Malachi's 'blading' movement upon seeing the officer, his subsequent attempt to walk away, and his failure to disclose the firearm as required by state statute collectively provided the officers with a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing. This totality of circumstances elevated the officers' suspicion beyond a mere hunch, satisfying the first prong of Terry v. Ohio. The reasonable suspicion that Malachi was unlawfully armed then justified the protective frisk for officer safety, satisfying the second prong of Terry.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the 'tip-plus' doctrine, clarifying that an otherwise insufficient anonymous tip can be legitimized by subsequent, independent police observations of evasive or suspicious conduct. It underscores the significance of the 'totality of the circumstances' analysis and gives weight to an officer's training and experience in interpreting a suspect's behavior, such as 'blading.' This case provides a clear example of how a suspect's reaction to police presence can become the critical factor that transforms an uncorroborated tip into the reasonable suspicion required for a Fourth Amendment seizure. It sets a precedent that makes it more difficult for defendants to suppress evidence in similar 'tip-plus' scenarios.
