State v. WilsonÂ, 250 N.C. App. 781

Background

Officer Blake Johnson, in uniform and in a marked patrol car, went to 402 Brooklyn Street to locate a person with outstanding warrants based on an anonymous tip; he parked across the street and exited his vehicle.
As a pickup driven by Joshua Wilson left the residence, Officer Johnson stood in the road and gestured with his arms above shoulder level for Wilson to stop; no lights, siren, weapon display, or roadblock were used.
Wilson stopped with his driver-side window next to the officer; the officer immediately smelled alcohol and questioned Wilson, who admitted drinking; Johnson then arrested Wilson for driving while impaired.
Wilson moved to suppress evidence, arguing the stop was an unconstitutional seizure without reasonable suspicion or probable cause; the trial court denied the motion and Wilson reserved appeal when pleading guilty.
The majority treated the trial court’s factual findings as supported by competent evidence, reclassified the contested factual finding (whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave) as a conclusion of law, and held Wilson was not seized under the Fourth Amendment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Wilson "seized" under the Fourth Amendment?	Wilson: officer’s arm motions were a command to stop and a show of authority, so he was seized without suspicion.	State: gestures plus no lights/sirens/weapon/roadblock were not coercive; a reasonable person would feel free to leave.	Held: No seizure; encounter was consensual as a matter of law.
Were the trial court’s findings and legal reclassification proper?	Wilson: court erred in finding a reasonable person would not feel compelled to stop (challenging factual finding).	State: that determination is a legal conclusion subject to de novo review; other factual findings are unchallenged.	Held: reclassified as conclusion of law; unchallenged facts supported the legal conclusion that there was no seizure.
Did traffic-control law (N.C. Gen. Stat. §20-114.1) obligate compliance with the officer’s gesture?	Wilson: statute required motorists to obey lawful directions, so motion to stop was mandatory.	State: gesture was not a traffic-control direction; no lights/roadblock/construction to indicate traffic control.	Held: statute inapplicable; gesture not related to traffic control and thus not a factor showing compulsion.
Should the case be remanded to evaluate reasonableness of a warrant-related information stop?	(Raised by dissent) Wilson: seizure without individualized suspicion requires suppression unless justified.	State: officer was investigating warrants/neighborhood safety; may fit Lidster-type informational stop analysis.	Held (majority): No seizure, so no need to reach Lidster balancing; dissent would remand for additional findings on reasonableness.

Key Cases Cited

Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (police approach in confined spaces does not automatically create a seizure; voluntariness gauged by totality of circumstances)
Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567 (officer conduct must be evaluated in context; presence of police vehicle alone may not constitute seizure)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (reasonable-person test and examples of coercive circumstances suggesting a seizure)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (seizure occurs only when physical force or show of authority restrains liberty)
Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (stops without individualized suspicion may be reasonable in limited informational-stop contexts; balancing test)
Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (framework for balancing public interest against individual liberty in stops)
State v. Farmer, 333 N.C. 172 (totality-of-circumstances analysis for consensual encounters in North Carolina)
State v. Veal, 234 N.C. App. 570 (approach to a stopped vehicle without lights/weapon/language indicating compulsion does not constitute seizure)