State v. Smith
222 N.C. App. 253
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- On 11 September 2010 at 11:02 p.m., Officer McDonald observed three people around a 1972 Chevrolet at a gas station; Leach was the driver, Curtis Smith, Jr. was a passenger, and McCray stood by the rear door.
- McDonald learned Leach’s license and registration; McCray and the two passengers were asked for identification.
- A drug dog and handler arrived after McDonald reviewed histories showing defendant’s drug offenses; Leach was cited for a noise violation.
- The drug dog was brought to the vehicle, and at 11:24 p.m. the dog alerted to narcotics at the driver’s door after sniffing the exterior; no contraband was found in the vehicle during the ensuing search except an open container of alcohol.
- Defendant was searched after the dog’s alert; contraband (cocaine) was later found on his person when Canup searched him, leading to charges of felony possession of cocaine and resisting a public officer.
- The trial court granted suppression of the on-person contraband, and the State appealed seeking reversal of that suppression order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a drug dog’s alert on a vehicle provides probable cause to search a recent occupant’s person. | State: canine alert on car yields probable cause to search occupants, including defendant. | Smith: drug-dog alert on vehicle does not, by itself, establish probable cause to search a passenger. | Affirmed suppression; alert on vehicle alone not enough to search defendant. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (U.S. 1983) (dog sniff reveals only presence of narcotics; not a search)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (U.S. 2005) (dog sniff on vehicle, no privacy interest invaded)
- State v. Downing, 169 N.C. App. 790 (N.C. App. 2005) (constitutional search standard; reasonableness)
- State v. Pittman, 111 N.C. App. 808 (N.C. App. 1993) (probable cause extends to reasonable belief vehicle search will uncover contraband)
- Di Re v. United States, 332 U.S. 581 (U.S. 1948) (limits of probable cause to searches of persons versus cars)
- Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (U.S. 1979) (mere presence near suspected criminal activity not enough for search)
- Anderson, 136 P.3d 406 (Kan. 2006) (state approach on dog alerts varying by inside/outside vehicle location)
- Whitehead v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 300 (Va. 2009) (drug-dog alert on vehicle with defendant outside; no probable cause without more)