State v. Robinson
221 N.C. App. 266, 727 S.E.2d 712 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an officer develops a specific basis to believe contraband is located beneath a suspect's underclothing during a lawful pat-down, a subsequent visual search of that area does not require a showing of exigent circumstances to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, provided the search is conducted in a manner that protects the suspect's privacy.
Facts:
- Shortly after midnight on March 5, 2009, Detective Brad Tisdale and Officer M.D. Pittman approached a parked car with three men inside, including Jerome Robinson, Jr., in a high-crime area of Charlotte.
- Detective Tisdale observed Robinson, seated in the back, holding a large amount of cash, which Robinson then dropped on the floor of the car.
- Simultaneously, Officer Pittman saw a machete in the front seat between the driver and the front passenger.
- After the front passenger was removed from the car, Officer Pittman observed crack cocaine in plain view on the seat where the passenger had been sitting.
- As officers dealt with the other occupants, Robinson made a sudden movement, lifting his waist area and placing his hands behind his back.
- Detective Tisdale ordered Robinson out of the car to conduct a pat-down for weapons.
- During the pat-down, Detective Tisdale felt a 'hard-like substance' between Robinson's buttocks.
- At his patrol car, Tisdale had Robinson lean forward, pulled the waistband of his pants back, and used a flashlight to see a plastic bag protruding from his buttocks, which then fell out.
Procedural Posture:
- On March 5, 2009, a Magistrate's Order was issued charging Jerome Robinson, Jr. with felonious possession of cocaine.
- On March 22, 2010, a Mecklenburg County grand jury indicted Robinson on the charge of felonious possession of cocaine.
- Robinson filed a motion in the trial court to suppress evidence seized at his arrest, claiming it was the result of an unconstitutional search.
- On February 10, 2011, the trial court entered an order denying Robinson's motion to suppress.
- Robinson entered a conditional plea of guilty, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
- The trial court entered judgment against Robinson, who then appealed (as appellant) 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 police officer's visual inspection of a suspect's buttocks, conducted after feeling a hard object there during a pat-down, violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches when there is probable cause but no specific finding of exigent circumstances?
Opinions:
Majority - Ervin, Judge
No, the visual inspection of the suspect's buttocks did not violate the Fourth Amendment. A search of this nature is reasonable when an officer develops a specific basis to believe contraband is hidden beneath a suspect's underclothing and conducts the search in a manner that protects the suspect's privacy. The totality of the circumstances—the high-crime area, machete, drugs in plain view, Robinson's furtive movements, and most importantly, the officer feeling a hard object between Robinson's buttocks during the pat-down—established probable cause. This 'specific basis' for the search distinguishes the case from precedents like State v. Battle, which require exigent circumstances for roadside strip searches based on only general suspicion. Instead, this case is controlled by State v. Smith, which upheld a similar search based on specific information. Because Detective Tisdale took reasonable steps to shield Robinson from public view, the search was not unreasonable in its scope or manner.
Dissenting - Elmore, Judge
Yes, the search violated the Fourth Amendment. The search constituted a roadside 'strip search,' which precedent from both State v. Battle and State v. Smith requires to be justified by both probable cause and exigent circumstances. The majority misinterprets precedent by creating an exception to the exigent circumstances requirement. A strip search is a significant intrusion on privacy and should be reserved for the most unusual cases. Because the trial court made no findings of exigent circumstances to justify conducting such an intrusive search on the roadside rather than at a police facility, the motion to suppress the evidence should have been granted.
Analysis:
This decision refines the Fourth Amendment analysis for roadside searches of intimate areas in North Carolina by creating a doctrinal split based on the officer's justification. It holds that the requirement of exigent circumstances for a 'strip search,' established in State v. Battle, applies only when police have a general suspicion of concealed contraband. In contrast, if officers develop a 'specific basis' to believe contraband is in a precise location under a suspect's clothes (e.g., by feeling it during a pat-down), the search is governed by a general reasonableness standard under State v. Smith, balancing the intrusion against the government's interest and privacy safeguards. This holding provides officers with more latitude to conduct such searches without proving an emergency, shifting the legal battleground in future cases to what qualifies as a sufficiently 'specific basis' to bypass the exigent circumstances requirement.
