372 N.C. 639
N.C.2019Background
- At ~11:30 p.m. on April 1, 2014, Officer Greg Anderson encountered Jeffrey Parisi at a DUI checkpoint; Anderson smelled alcohol, saw an open box of beer in the passenger area, and observed Parisi’s eyes were glassy/red.
- Parisi admitted drinking three beers earlier that evening. Anderson asked Parisi to exit the vehicle and administered three field sobriety tests (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, Walk-and-Turn, One-Leg Stand).
- Officer Anderson testified he observed multiple HGN “clues,” two missed steps on the walk-and-turn, and swaying/arm use on the one-leg stand and concluded Parisi was appreciably impaired; Parisi was arrested and cited under N.C.G.S. § 20-138.1.
- Parisi moved to suppress, and both the District Court (Judge Crumpton) and Superior Court on appeal (Judge Duncan) granted suppression and dismissed the charge, concluding Anderson lacked probable cause.
- The State appealed; the Court of Appeals granted certiorari, reversed the suppression orders (divided panel), and remanded. Parisi sought review in the North Carolina Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals: the unchallenged factual findings (driving, admission of drinking, odor of alcohol, red/glassy eyes, multiple sobriety-test indicators) supported as a matter of law a finding of probable cause to arrest for impaired driving.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Parisi) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Officer Anderson had probable cause to arrest Parisi for impaired driving under § 20-138.1 | The totality of circumstances (admission of drinking, odor of alcohol, open beer box, red/glassy eyes, multiple clues on three sobriety tests) provided probable cause | Trial courts properly weighed credibility and implicitly found Parisi not appreciably impaired; findings support suppression and dismissal | Court held probable cause existed; appellate reversal of suppression affirmed |
| Proper standard of appellate review for suppression orders | Court of Appeals correctly applied de novo review to trial courts’ conclusions of law and considered whether factual findings supported legal conclusion | Court of Appeals improperly reweighed evidence / failed to defer to trial courts’ factual findings and implicit credibility determinations | Court held that factual findings were supported by competent evidence but the legal conclusion (no probable cause) was reviewable de novo and was erroneous |
| Role of field sobriety-test observations and officer opinion in probable-cause analysis | Officer’s observations (HGN clues, missed steps, swaying) are probative and, combined with other facts, support probable cause | Trial courts rejected or gave little weight to officer’s impairment opinion; imperfect/passing performance did not show appreciable impairment | Court treated the sobriety-test indicia and admission of drinking as supporting probable cause as a matter of law |
| Applicability of precedent (Townsend, Bartlett, Atkins, Hewitt) | Townsend and other cases support that similar clusters of indicia suffice for probable cause; Atkins/Hewitt permit combining evidence of drinking with other impairment indicators | Reliance on Townsend and similar appellate decisions misapplies precedent; Bartlett requires explicit findings to resolve material conflicts | Court found Townsend et al. persuasive; Bartlett distinguished because no material evidentiary conflict existed here — appellate de novo review of legal conclusion appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Townsend, 236 N.C. App. 456 (N.C. Ct. App.) (Court of Appeals decision finding probable cause where bloodshot eyes, odor of alcohol, multiple FST clues, and positive alco-sensor tests existed)
- State v. Bartlett, 368 N.C. 309 (N.C.) (trial must make explicit findings to resolve material evidentiary conflicts essential to probable-cause determination)
- State v. Atkins, 277 N.C. 179 (N.C.) (odor of alcohol plus other indicia of impairment can establish prima facie impaired-driving offense)
- State v. Hewitt, 263 N.C. 759 (N.C.) (drinking plus faulty driving or other impairment indicators can support impaired-driving inference)
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (U.S.) (definition of probable cause under federal law cited for principles governing arrests)