State v. Swift
105 N.C. App. 550, 414 S.E.2d 65, 1992 N.C. App. LEXIS 253 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person lacks standing to challenge a vehicle search under the Fourth Amendment if they do not have an ownership or possessory interest in the vehicle. Furthermore, flight from a lawful investigatory stop, based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, can provide probable cause for an arrest for resisting a public officer.
Facts:
- Police Officers Hurley and Dugan received a complaint about females drinking beer in a Fast Fare parking lot.
- Upon arriving, the officers observed Milton Swift sitting in a car talking to three females.
- As the officers entered the parking lot, Swift exited from the driver's side of the car and placed a beer can on the ground.
- Officer Hurley approached Swift and requested his driver's license.
- Swift stated he did not have one, began to walk away, was ordered to come back by Officer Dugan, and then fled on foot.
- The officers pursued, caught, and detained Swift.
- Swift later claimed a friend named Joe owned the car and had left him to guard it.
Procedural Posture:
- Milton Swift was indicted in a state trial court for resisting a public officer, carrying a concealed weapon, and trafficking in drugs.
- Following a trial, a jury found Swift guilty on all charges.
- The trial court imposed consecutive sentences for the convictions.
- Swift, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, arguing the trial court erred in failing to suppress evidence from the car 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 the Fourth Amendment require the suppression of evidence found during a search of a vehicle when the defendant, who was a recent occupant and arrested nearby, asserts no ownership or possessory interest in the car?
Opinions:
Majority - Lewis, J.
No, the Fourth Amendment does not require suppression of the evidence because the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search and, even if he had standing, the search was a lawful search incident to arrest. First, to challenge a search, a defendant must have an ownership or possessory interest and a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched. Here, Swift denied owning the car and was merely its temporary guardian, which is insufficient to establish standing. Citing Rakas v. Illinois, the court noted that a mere passenger does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a car's glove compartment or under its seats. Second, even if Swift had standing, the search was valid as a search incident to a lawful arrest. The initial investigatory stop was justified because officers, responding to a complaint, observed Swift exit the driver's side and place a beer can on the ground, creating a reasonable suspicion that he was illegally consuming alcohol. Swift's subsequent flight from this lawful stop provided probable cause for his arrest for resisting an officer under N.C.G.S. § 14-223. Because the arrest was lawful, the officers were entitled to search the passenger compartment of the car Swift had just occupied, pursuant to the rule in New York v. Belton.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the stringent requirements for Fourth Amendment standing, clarifying that merely being a passenger or temporary guardian of a vehicle does not confer a reasonable expectation of privacy to challenge a search. It also illustrates the legal progression from a lawful investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion of a minor offense to probable cause for a separate arrest (resisting an officer) based on the suspect's flight. The decision provides a clear example of how flight from a lawful stop, unlike flight from an unlawful one, can create independent grounds for arrest, thereby justifying a subsequent search incident to that arrest.
