State v. PowellÂ, 253 N.C. App. 590

Defendant Danny Wayne Powell Jr., a probationer for a 2013 felony breaking/entering conviction, was visited at home on March 4, 2015 as part of a multi‑agency task‑force operation led by probation officers and U.S. Marshals.
Officers (not Powell’s assigned probation officer) conducted a warrantless search while Powell was present; officers found and seized two long guns in a bedroom closet. Powell was arrested and indicted for possession of a firearm by a felon.
Powell moved to suppress the firearms at trial; the trial court denied the motion without findings and a jury convicted him. He appealed.
The State justified the search under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A‑1343(b)(13) (warrantless searches by probation officers "for purposes directly related to probation supervision"). The 2009 amendment changed the prior "reasonably related" language to "directly related."
The Court of Appeals reviewed for plain error (Powell failed to renew his objection at trial but assigned plain error on appeal), examined officer testimony about the purpose and organization of the search, and concluded the State failed to prove the search was "for purposes directly related to probation supervision." The court reversed and vacated the conviction.

Issue	State's Argument	Powell's Argument	Held
Whether the warrantless search of Powell’s home was authorized by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A‑1343(b)(13) (searches "for purposes directly related to probation supervision").	The search was a lawful probation search under § 15A‑1343(b)(13); probationers consent to warrantless searches and task‑force assistance by law enforcement is permitted.	The search was part of a multi‑agency law‑enforcement operation, not a search conducted for purposes directly related to Powell’s probation supervision, so § 15A‑1343(b)(13) does not authorize it.	The court held the State failed to show the search was "for purposes directly related to probation supervision"; denial of suppression was plain error.

State v. Golphin, 352 N.C. 364 (N.C. 2000) (preservation rule: pretrial suppression motion does not preserve objection at trial)
State v. Waring, 364 N.C. 443 (N.C. 2010) (plain‑error review applicable when defendant assigns plain error)
State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506 (N.C. 2012) (plain‑error standard: defendant must show probable impact on jury verdict)
State v. Jackson, 368 N.C. 75 (N.C. 2015) (standard of review and findings supporting suppression rulings)
State v. Bartlett, 368 N.C. 309 (N.C. 2015) (findings required only for material conflicts in suppression hearing evidence)
State v. Cheek, 307 N.C. 552 (N.C. 1983) (burden on State to demonstrate admissibility at suppression hearing)
State v. McCoy, 45 N.C. App. 686 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979) (probation condition may waive expectation of privacy and permit warrantless searches)
State v. Howell, 51 N.C. App. 507 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981) (presence/assistance of police does not automatically invalidate probation officer search)
State v. Church, 110 N.C. App. 569 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993) (probation officer’s assisted search upheld where it furthered supervisory goals)
State v. Robinson, 148 N.C. App. 422 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002) (probation officer may act on information suggesting violation; assistance by police does not negate supervisory purpose)
United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616 (4th Cir. 2007) (discusses limits on probationer searches and importance of supervisory nexus)