State v. CastilloÂ
247 N.C. App. 327
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Sept. 26, 2014 Officer Roy Green (15-year interdiction veteran) paced and stopped Castillo for speeding (72 mph in a 60 zone); initial stop undisputedly lawful.
- On the roadside Officer Green observed extreme nervousness, smelled air freshener, saw the car was registered to a third party (NY), and Castillo gave evasive/unusual answers about his destination (could not name city; claimed GPS had an address).
- Officer Green had Castillo sit in the patrol car while he ran checks (warrants/EPIC); during that encounter Officer Green smelled marijuana and Castillo admitted recent marijuana use and a prior marijuana-based DUI.
- After receiving dispatch that there were no outstanding warrants and while handing a warning ticket to Castillo, Officer Green asked about marijuana; Castillo said "you can search, if you want to search." A search revealed heroin and cocaine in a hidden compartment.
- Trial court granted suppression, finding the stop was unlawfully extended and consent was not clear and unequivocal; the State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Castillo's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officer unlawfully extended the traffic stop under Rodriguez by conducting ancillary checks and running databases | Officer: totality (nervousness, masking odor, 3rd-party registration, evasive travel story, smell of marijuana) gave reasonable suspicion to continue investigation and run checks | Castillo: trial court found the stop was extended without reasonable suspicion and thus unlawful under Rodriguez | Reversed trial court: officer had reasonable suspicion before and during checks; extension was lawful under the totality-of-circumstances standard |
| Whether statements made during the stop required Miranda warnings | State: questions were routine and not custodial; Miranda inapplicable | Castillo: defense argued Miranda should have been given | Court: Miranda not applicable to roadside, noncustodial questioning during a traffic stop (Berkemer) |
| Whether Castillo gave clear and voluntary consent to search the vehicle | State: Castillo’s statement "you can search if you want to search" was clear, voluntary, and contemporaneous with the officer's request | Castillo: trial court concluded consent was not freely given (and may have been coerced by an alleged unlawful extension) | Court: trial court misapprehended sequence; consent was given before the officer told Castillo to "sit tight"; finding consent involuntary was clearly erroneous; consent valid |
| Remedy / disposition | State: suppression inappropriate; evidence admissible | Castillo: suppression proper; evidence tainted by unlawful detention/lack of consent | Court: reversed suppression order and remanded for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (traffic-stop detention may not be prolonged beyond mission without reasonable suspicion)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (roadside questioning during traffic stops is generally noncustodial for Miranda purposes)
- State v. Williams, 366 N.C. 110 (2012) (reasonable-suspicion standard viewed through officer's training/experience; aggregate innocent factors can amount to reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Smith, 346 N.C. 794 (1997) (consent to search evaluated under totality of circumstances)
- State v. Fisher, 219 N.C. App. 498 (2012) (collective factors — nervousness, masking odors, third-party registration, inconsistent travel plans — can support reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Carpenter, 462 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2006) (aggregate innocent factors justified continued detention pending canine unit)
- United States v. Ludwig, 641 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2011) (similar multi-factor analysis supporting reasonable suspicion)