State v. Warren
242 N.C. App. 496, 2015 N.C. App. LEXIS 674, 775 S.E.2d 362 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may extend the duration of a lawful traffic stop to conduct a canine sniff if the officer develops reasonable suspicion of criminal activity during the stop. The totality of the circumstances, including the driver's location, behavior, statements, and the officer's training and experience, are considered in determining if reasonable suspicion exists.
Facts:
- A police officer stopped Charles Dione Warren for a traffic violation in an area the officer knew to be a high-crime and high-drug-activity area.
- While writing a warning citation, the officer engaged Warren in conversation.
- The officer observed that Warren had an object in his mouth that he was not chewing and which affected his speech.
- Based on six years of experience and specific narcotics training, the officer was aware that individuals sometimes hide drugs in their mouths.
- During the conversation, Warren denied current involvement in drug activity but stated he was not involved in that 'type of stuff anymore.'
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Dione Warren was indicted for drug offenses and for attaining the status of habitual felon.
- Warren filed a motion in the trial court to suppress evidence found during the traffic stop.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motion to suppress the drugs but granted it for information retrieved from cell phones.
- A jury found Warren guilty of felonious possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia.
- Warren then pleaded guilty to attaining the status of habitual felon.
- Warren appealed the trial court's partial denial of his motion to suppress 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 have reasonable suspicion to extend a lawful traffic stop for a canine drug sniff where the driver is in a high-crime area, appears to have an object in his mouth affecting his speech, and states he is not involved in drug activity 'any longer'?
Opinions:
Majority - Dillon, Judge.
Yes. A police officer has reasonable suspicion to extend a lawful traffic stop for a canine sniff under these circumstances. The court determined that the totality of the circumstances established the 'minimal level of objective justification' required for reasonable suspicion. The court reasoned that several factors combined to justify the officer's suspicion: 1) Warren was stopped in a known high-crime and high-drug area; 2) he had an object in his mouth affecting his speech, which, based on the officer's training, was consistent with hiding drugs; and 3) his statement that he was not involved in drugs 'any longer' implied past involvement. Citing Rodriguez v. United States, the court held that while a dog sniff cannot prolong a stop without justification, the reasonable suspicion developed in this case was sufficient to justify the extension.
Dissenting - Elmore, Judge.
No. A police officer does not have reasonable suspicion in this scenario because the driver's actions did not constitute evasive behavior. The dissent argued that, unlike in precedent cases, Warren was cooperative, engaged in conversation, and did not act evasively. Critically, the officer never asked Warren about the object in his mouth during the initial stop or a subsequent consensual search of his person, which undermines the claim that it was the primary basis for suspicion. The dissent concluded the officer was acting on an 'unparticularized suspicion or hunch,' and that absent reasonable suspicion, the stop was unlawfully prolonged in violation of the Fourth Amendment as articulated in Rodriguez v. United States.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the Rodriguez v. United States standard in North Carolina, establishing that a combination of factors, even without overt evasive action, can constitute reasonable suspicion to prolong a traffic stop. The ruling demonstrates that an officer's training, a driver's location in a high-crime area, suspicious but non-evasive behavior, and ambiguous statements about past criminal activity can, in totality, justify a canine sniff that extends a stop. This precedent provides law enforcement with a basis to extend stops in similar ambiguous situations, while the dissent highlights the risk of such extensions being based on mere hunches rather than concrete evasive actions.
