State v. McClendon
517 S.E.2d 128, 350 N.C. 630, 1999 N.C. LEXIS 718 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A traffic stop is constitutionally reasonable if an officer has objective probable cause that a traffic violation occurred, regardless of the officer's subjective motivations. An officer may then extend the duration of the stop if, during the initial stop, the totality of the circumstances gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that other criminal activity is afoot.
Facts:
- On February 21, 1996, Highway Patrol Sergeant T.L. Cardwell observed a minivan and a station wagon, driven by defendant McClendon, traveling at 72 mph in a 65 mph zone.
- McClendon was also following the minivan too closely, and Cardwell formed a subjective opinion that the minivan was a 'decoy vehicle' for McClendon's station wagon.
- After officers stopped both vehicles, McClendon appeared extremely nervous, was breathing heavily, and avoided eye contact.
- McClendon produced the car's title but not the registration. He stated the car belonged to his girlfriend but could not immediately provide her name.
- The address on the title for the owner, Jema Ramirez, was the same as the address on McClendon's driver's license.
- When questioned further, McClendon mumbled that the owner's name might be 'Anna,' which did not match the name on the title.
- McClendon denied traveling with the driver of the minivan, who gave a suspicious story to the other officer.
- McClendon twice refused to give consent for the officers to search his vehicle.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant McClendon was indicted in trial court for trafficking in marijuana and conspiracy.
- McClendon filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in his vehicle, arguing the search was unconstitutional.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
- McClendon then entered a guilty plea but reserved his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
- McClendon (appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
- A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling.
- McClendon (appellant) appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court as a matter of right because of the dissent in the 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 the continued detention of a motorist for a canine sniff, after the completion of a lawful traffic stop, violate Article I, Section 20 of the North Carolina Constitution if the officers have developed a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based on the totality of the circumstances observed during the stop?
Opinions:
Majority - Mitchell, Chief Justice
No, the continued detention of a motorist after the completion of a lawful traffic stop does not violate the North Carolina Constitution if officers have developed a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The court first adopted the objective test from Whren v. United States, holding that the initial traffic stop was constitutionally valid because the officer had probable cause to believe McClendon had violated traffic laws (speeding and following too closely), making the officer's subjective belief about decoy vehicles immaterial. The court then determined that the officers were justified in detaining McClendon further because his actions during the stop created a reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity. The totality of the circumstances—including McClendon's extreme nervousness, his inability to name the car's owner despite claiming she was his girlfriend, and his providing a name that did not match the title—provided specific and articulable facts to support this suspicion. The court clarified its prior holding in State v. Pearson, stating that nervousness, while not sufficient on its own, is a relevant factor in the totality of the circumstances analysis. Finally, the 15-20 minute duration of the extended detention was reasonable as the officers acted diligently to procure the canine unit.
Analysis:
This decision formally adopts the objective standard from the U.S. Supreme Court case Whren v. United States into North Carolina constitutional law, effectively eliminating pretextual traffic stop challenges under Article I, Section 20. It solidifies the 'totality of the circumstances' test for extending a traffic stop, providing law enforcement with clear authority to prolong a detention if a driver's behavior or answers generate reasonable suspicion. By clarifying its position on nervousness as a factor, the court moved away from the more dismissive language in its prior Pearson decision, signaling that an individual's demeanor, when combined with other suspicious facts, can be a significant component in justifying further investigation.
