State v. PowellÂ, 16-1022

Defendant Danny Wayne Powell Jr., on supervised probation for a prior felony, was on a task-force search list and his residence was visited on March 4, 2015 during a multi-agency operation involving Probation & Parole officers, a U.S. Marshals task force, and local investigators.
Officers knocked, detained Powell in the kitchen, and his wife told them a firearm was in the bedroom closet; officers seized two long guns and Powell was arrested for being a felon in possession.
Powell moved to suppress the firearms at the suppression hearing; the trial court denied the motion without written findings and the jury convicted him of possession of a firearm by a felon.
On appeal Powell argued the warrantless search of his home was not authorized by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1343(b)(13) (searches "for purposes directly related to probation supervision").
The State relied on officer testimony that the search was part of the task-force operation and that Powell was subject to probation search conditions; officers acknowledged the operation targeted a list prepared by probation supervisors and included some random selections and federal participation.
The Court of Appeals held the State failed to prove the search was "for purposes directly related to probation supervision," found the denial of the suppression motion plain error, reversed, and vacated the conviction.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the warrantless search of a probationer’s residence was authorized by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1343(b)(13) (searches "for purposes directly related to probation supervision").	The search was lawful under § 15A-1343(b)(13) because Powell was a probationer subject to search conditions and officers (including probation/parole officers) conducted the search as part of probation supervision.	The search was part of a multi-agency task-force law-enforcement sweep, not a supervision-focused probation search, so it was not "directly related" to probation supervision and thus unlawful.	Reversed: State failed to show the search was "for purposes directly related" to probation supervision; suppression denial was plain error.

State v. Bartlett, 368 N.C. 309 (N.C. 2015) (trial court must make findings resolving material conflicts at suppression hearing; absent conflict, findings may be inferred)
State v. McCoy, 45 N.C. App. 686 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980) (probation condition permitting warrantless searches can reduce expectation of privacy)
State v. Howell, 51 N.C. App. 507 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981) (presence/assistance of police does not automatically invalidate a probation officer’s § 15A-1343 search)
State v. Church, 110 N.C. App. 569 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993) (probation officer’s search with law enforcement assistance upheld where search furthered supervisory purpose)
State v. Robinson, 148 N.C. App. 422 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002) (probation officer may act on information suggesting probation violation and obtain consent/assistance to investigate)
United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616 (4th Cir. 2007) (discusses limits on warrantless probation searches and need for supervisory purpose)
State v. Waring, 364 N.C. 443 (N.C. 2010) (plain error preservation and review standards)
State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506 (N.C. 2012) (plain error requires showing probable impact on jury verdict)