State v. FullerÂ, 809 S.E.2d 157

Officer Goode surveilled Kenneth Fuller at a gas station, knew Fuller's license was suspended and suspected narcotics activity; he followed Fuller after Fuller drove away.
Goode stopped Fuller, observed him exit the driver’s side and go to the trunk; Fuller was arrested for driving with a revoked license, handcuffed, and placed in a cruiser.
Officers searched Fuller’s Mercedes (Fuller disputed he consented); an initial search produced no contraband; a K‑9 later alerted to the driver’s seat.
Because the dog alerted to the driver’s seat and no drugs were found in the car, officers transported Fuller to the police station and conducted a search of his person in a private interview room.
The officer lowered Fuller’s pants and underwear to about knee level, viewed the genital/buttock area, retrieved a plastic bag from a hidden fly seam containing cocaine, and Fuller was charged with possession.
Trial court denied Fuller’s suppression motion; jury convicted him of possession of cocaine; Fuller appealed arguing plain error from denial of the suppression motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Fuller)	Held
Whether the warrantless, non‑consensual strip/search of Fuller’s person was lawful	Search incident to a lawful arrest permits full search of person; K‑9 alert to driver’s seat plus Fuller being the driver justified the in‑station search	The strip search was unreasonable and violated Fourth Amendment; consent to search car was involuntary; suppression should have been granted	Denial of suppression was not plain error. Search incident to arrest was reasonable under circumstances; conviction stands
Whether voluntariness of consent to search the car was decided correctly	State relied on trial court findings that Fuller consented to the vehicle search (officer testimony credited)	Fuller contended on appeal consent was involuntary (argument not raised at trial)	Court declined to consider voluntariness argument because it was not raised below; appellate review refused

Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (warrantless searches are per se unreasonable absent established exceptions)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (search‑incident‑to‑arrest exception linked to officer safety and evidence preservation)
United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973) (a full search of the person is permissible incident to a lawful custodial arrest)
State v. Battle, 202 N.C. App. 376 (2010) (roadside strip searches require probable cause plus exigent circumstances; preference for searches at a police facility)
State v. Smith, 222 N.C. App. 253 (2012) (K‑9 alert to vehicle and empty vehicle search do not alone justify warrantless search of a particular person without more particularized probable cause)
State v. Brooks, 337 N.C. 132 (1994) (recognizing Robinson’s categorical rule for searches incident to arrest under North Carolina law)
State v. Fowler, 220 N.C. App. 263 (2012) (reasonableness of strip searches requires balancing scope, manner, justification, and place)