State v. NicholsonÂ, 255 N.C. App. 665

At ~4:00 a.m. on Dec. 23, 2015, Lt. Marotz found a car stopped in a turn lane with two men inside; front passenger seat empty, defendant seated behind driver. Windows were down despite cold/misting rain.\
Marotz approached; driver (Chavis) and defendant said they were brothers and had argued but were "fine." Marotz watched them, called for backup, and activated his body cam.\
Defendant exited the backseat, at one point pulled a toboggan over his face (Marotz thought it might have eyeholes), and later told officers he sometimes carried a knife. Officers detained and patted down defendant; no knife was found on him. Encounter lasted ~8–10 minutes.\
After the stop officers learned defendant's identity; Chavis later reported being robbed at knife-point during that encounter, identified defendant in a photo lineup and at trial, and police found a steak knife in Chavis's car. A matching knife block at defendant's home was missing one steak knife.\
Defendant moved to suppress statements obtained during the detention; the trial court denied the motion orally. Defendant was convicted of common-law robbery; the Court of Appeals majority granted a new trial, holding the seizure lacked reasonable suspicion and that admitted evidence was fruit of the seizure.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lt. Marotz had reasonable suspicion to seize defendant when he prevented him from leaving for the store	Marotz had articulable facts (odd late-hour stoppage in lane, unusual seating, defendant pulling toboggan over face, driver’s conflicting signals and haste) that a reasonable, cautious officer could view as indicia of criminal activity	Officer lacked objective evidence of criminality; questions about weapons and detention were routine checks and amounted to an unconstitutional seizure based on a hunch	No reasonable suspicion found; seizure was unconstitutional (stop lacked specific, articulable facts)
Whether admission of evidence obtained after the seizure was harmless error	Evidence (victim’s ID, knife from car, matching knife block at defendant’s home) established guilt; any statements were cumulative and not outcome-determinative	The identifications and physical evidence flowed from the unlawful seizure and thus are fruit of the poisonous tree and should have been suppressed	Error was prejudicial: evidence stemming from the unlawful seizure should have been suppressed; new trial required

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes reasonable-suspicion standard for brief investigatory stops)
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (reasonable suspicion required to seize or detain)
United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (totality-of-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (innocent acts may, in combination, support reasonable suspicion)
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (exclusionary rule applies to states)
State v. Watkins, 337 N.C. 437 (NC discussion of investigatory stops and reasonable suspicion)
State v. Murray, 192 N.C. App. 684 (insufficient grounds where officer relied on generalized area facts and no specific vehicle facts)
State v. McKinney, 361 N.C. 53 (evidence derived from unconstitutional searches/seizures is inadmissible)