State v. Jackson
368 N.C. 75
| N.C. | 2016Background
- Officer Timothy Brown, patrolling near Kim’s Mart (a location known for frequent hand-to-hand drug transactions), observed Jackson and Curtis Benton standing by a newspaper dispenser around 9:00 p.m.
- Upon seeing Brown’s marked patrol car the pair dispersed; Jackson walked east into Kim’s Mart and Benton walked west.
- Brown passed the store, made a U-turn, returned, and saw both men back near the same spot. They again separated and walked in opposite directions as Brown pulled into the lot.
- Brown stopped Jackson, conducted a frisk after asking him to place his hands on the car, and obtained consent to search; Jackson produced a loaded handgun from his person during the pat-down.
- Benton was separately searched and found to possess multiple small plastic bags of marijuana; based on these seizures Jackson was indicted for felon-in-possession, possession of a firearm with an altered serial number, and conspiracy to possess with intent to sell or deliver marijuana.
- The trial court denied Jackson’s motion to suppress; the Court of Appeals reversed. The North Carolina Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the unchallenged trial-court findings established reasonable suspicion for the stop.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Officer Brown had reasonable suspicion to perform an investigatory stop of Jackson | The State: Brown observed specific, articulable facts (presence in a drug‑market location, observed dispersion on officer’s approach, return to same spot, re‑separation on officer’s return) that, under the totality of circumstances, created reasonable suspicion | Jackson: The conduct (standing in a high‑crime area and walking away) was innocent in nature and insufficient to support reasonable suspicion; the stop was an unconstitutional seizure | Court reversed Court of Appeals: unchallenged findings provided particularized, objective basis for reasonable suspicion to justify the brief investigatory stop |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (recognizes brief investigative stops based on reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (reasonable suspicion requires particularized, objective basis; totality of circumstances test)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (presence in high‑crime area is a contextual factor in Terry analysis)
- State v. Otto, 366 N.C. 134 (North Carolina applies reasonable suspicion standard to investigatory stops)
- State v. Biber, 365 N.C. 162 (standard of review for denial of suppression: findings supported by competent evidence and conclusions supported by findings)