State v. BrodyÂ, 251 N.C. App. 812

In October 2014 CMPD investigated James Paul Brody for alleged cocaine trafficking at 3124 Olde Creek Trail, Matthews, NC.
Detective E.D. Duft submitted an affidavit (28 Oct 2014) relying principally on a confidential informant (CI) who had: visited Brody’s residence ~30 times, observed Brody possessing/selling cocaine on each visit (including within 48 hours), and seen a firearm at the location.
The affidavit also stated the CI had arranged/negotiated and purchased cocaine from Brody under Detective Duft’s direct supervision, and that the CI had previously provided information about other local drug traffickers; Detective Duft described the CI as reliable.
Detective Duft’s affidavit recited his 18 years of law‑enforcement experience and specialized narcotics training.
A magistrate issued a warrant; police seized drugs at Brody’s home. Brody pled guilty to possession with intent to sell/deliver cocaine but preserved the right to appeal the suppression denial.

Issue	State's Argument	Brody's Argument	Held
Whether the search‑warrant affidavit established probable cause based on the CI tip	Affidavit provided timely, repeated, corroborated observations by a known CI; Detective Duft’s experience and supervised controlled purchase bolstered reliability	Affidavit failed to sufficiently show CI reliability or that drugs were likely at the residence (insufficient corroboration/detail)	Probable cause existed; magistrate reasonably inferred CI reliability and a fair probability contraband was at Brody’s home

State v. Arrington, 311 N.C. 633 (magistrate must find a fair probability contraband will be found)
State v. Campbell, 282 N.C. 125 (definition of probable cause and standard for search warrants)
State v. Barnhardt, 92 N.C. App. 94 (CI who recently observed drugs and could identify cocaine supported probable cause when combined with officer’s experience)
State v. Taylor, 191 N.C. App. 587 (limitations where affidavit lacked specificity about which dwelling or seller was involved)
State v. Benters, 367 N.C. 660 (courts must defer to magistrate’s reasonable inferences; avoid de novo scrutiny)