State v. Fowler, 220 N.C. App. 263

Defendant Fowler pled guilty to felony possession of cocaine after the trial court denied a motion to suppress evidence found on his person at arrest.
Officers, with an informant, investigated potential drug deals and traced Fowler to a silver Kia; an informant identified Fowler's vehicle and provided tip about crack cocaine.
Fowler was stopped for speeding; he was handcuffed and later arrested for driving while license revoked after discovery of a suspended license.
A consensual search of Fowler's vehicle yielded marijuana; a subsequent intrusive search of Fowler’s person disclosed three grams of crack cocaine in a boxer-brief pouch.
The searches occurred in stages: roadside, back of a patrol car, and a secluded school parking lot; the most intrusive search found the drugs in Fowler's underwear.
Fowler challenged the legality of the searches, arguing lack of probable cause and absence of exigent circumstances; the trial court denied the motion, and Fowler pled guilty while reserving rights to appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the roadside searches were strip searches under Battle	Fowler argues Battle requires heightened protection for roadside strip searches.	Fowler contends the searches exceeded permissible limits and violated privacy interests.	Yes; the searches were strip-searches and require probable cause and exigent circumstances.
Probable cause to search Fowler's person beyond the initial vehicle search	State contends informant's tip, corroborated by Officer Gant, created probable cause to search Fowler's person.	Fowler asserts informant tip was vague/unreliable and not independently corroborated to justify more intrusive search.	Probable cause supported by corroborated informant information and vehicle search results.
Existence of exigent circumstances justifying the intrusive search	State asserts exigent circumstances due to risk of evidence destruction and jail intake fears.	Fowler claims no compelling exigency existed and less intrusive options were available.	Exigent circumstances existed, supported by recording and concern about disposal of drugs at jail intake.
Reasonableness of the intrusive search given location, timing, and privacy	Search conducted discreetly at night, away from public view, with limits on exposure.	Intrusiveness and exposure were unconstitutional under Battle's framework.	Search deemed reasonable under circumstances; conducted discreetly, at night, away from public view.

State v. Battle, 202 N.C.App. 376, 688 S.E.2d 805 (N.C.App. 2010) (defines roadside strip-search standard requiring probable cause and exigent circumstances)
State v. Stone, 362 N.C. 50, 653 S.E.2d 414 (N.C. 2007) (privacy expectations regarding observation of intimate areas)
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (balancing intrusion vs. governmental interests in searches)
State v. Johnson, 143 N.C.App. 307, 547 S.E.2d 445 (N.C.App. 2001) ( Fourth Amendment privacy and reasonableness in searches)
State v. Green, 194 N.C.App. 623, 670 S.E.2d 635 (N.C.App. 2009) (totality of the circumstances for reliability of informants)