State v. Salinas, 366 N.C. 119

An anonymous 911 tip described a small white car driving erratically near Way Street in Reidsville, NC, later observed by police near a Food Lion parking lot.
Officers Velasquez and Hampshire followed the vehicle when it appeared, noting a wide turn, crossing of lane lines, and other erratic movements.
Defendant was stopped after the officers observed driving that suggested impairment, and he was not wearing a seat belt as they passed.
During the stop, defendant exhibited constricted pupils, difficulty focusing, slow speech, and the odor of burnt marijuana.
Defendant admitted to smoking marijuana earlier that day; he performed a breath test showing 0.00, with officers concluding drug impairment rather than alcohol impairment.
A search of the vehicle yielded drug paraphernalia; defendant was arrested on charges including driving while impaired and drug paraphernalia possession.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion.	Salinas	Salinas	Remanded for reconsideration under reasonable suspicion standard
Whether the superior court applied the correct legal standard and made adequate findings of fact.	State contends proper standard applied; findings insufficient	Defendant argues discrepancies negate basis for stop	Superior court erred by applying probable cause; findings insufficient; remanded
Whether the affidavit in support of the motion to suppress could be used as evidence in findings of fact.	Affidavit fact-finding properly considered	Affidavit is only procedural; cannot serve as evidentiary basis	Affidavit cannot be used as evidence in findings; case remanded for live testimony

State v. Styles, 362 N.C. 412 (N.C. 2008) (reasonable suspicion standard governs traffic stops)
State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132 (N.C. 1982) (appellate review of suppression orders; findings required)
State v. Phillips, 300 N.C. 678 (N.C. 1980) (finding of fact requirements; credibility considerations)
State v. Horner, 310 N.C. 274 (N.C. 1984) (necessity of findings to support suppression rulings)
State v. McKinney, 361 N.C. 53 (N.C. 2006) (remand where findings insufficient to apply proper standard)
State v. Holloway, 311 N.C. 573 (N.C. 1984) (affidavit's procedural role; live testimony required at hearing)
State v. Breeden, 306 N.C. 533 (N.C. 1982) (affidavit-based burden shifting in suppression motions)
State v. Salinas, 214 N.C. App. 408 (N.C. App. 2011) (Court of Appeals misapplied standard; remand for proper analysis)