State Carolina v. Heien

• Decision Date: 16 August 2011
• Docket Number: No. COA11–52.,COA11–52.
• Citation: 714 S.E.2d 827
• Parties: STATE of North Carolinav.Nicholas Brady HEIEN.
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

714 S.E.2d 827

STATE of North Carolina

v.Nicholas Brady HEIEN.

No. COA11–52.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Aug. 16, 2011.

Appeal by Defendant from an order dated 25 March 2010 by Judge Vance Bradford Long and judgments entered 26 May 2010 by Judge A. Moses Massey in Superior Court, Surry County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 May 2011.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General J. Allen Jernigan, for the State.

Michele Goldman, Raleigh, for Defendant.

McGEE, Judge.

Nicholas Brady Heien (Defendant) pled guilty to attempted trafficking in cocaine by transporting and by possession on 26 May 2010. The trial court determined Defendant's prior record level to be a Level I, and sentenced Defendant to two consecutive prison terms of ten months to twelve months. Defendant appeals.

Sergeant Matt Darisse (Sergeant Darisse), of the Surry County Sheriff's Office, testified that he was “conducting criminal interdiction” on Interstate Highway 77 (I–77) when he observed a passing vehicle (the vehicle) driven by a man who appeared to be “stiff and nervous.” Sergeant Darisse pulled onto I–77, “observed the driving of the vehicle, and noticed that [the] vehicle approach[ed] a slower moving vehicle, appl[ied] its brakes[,] and [that] the right side brake light was out.” Sergeant Darisse testified that, upon observing that the vehicle's right brake light was out, he “put [his] blue lights on to pull the vehicle over.”

When Sergeant Darisse approached the vehicle, he told the driver, Maynor Javier Vasquez (Mr. Vasquez), that he had been “pulled ... over for the brake light being out” and asked Mr. Vasquez to produce his driver's license and registration. Defendant, the only passenger, was lying in the back seat of the vehicle. Because Mr. Vasquez appeared nervous and was slow to produce the requested documents, Sergeant Darisse asked Mr. Vasquez to step out of the vehicle and wait between the vehicle and Sergeant Darisse's patrol car while Sergeant Darisse checked Mr. Vasquez's license and registration.

Deputy Mark Ward (Deputy Ward), of the Surry County Sheriff's Office, arrived to assist Sergeant Darisse with the traffic stop. Deputy Ward briefly questioned Defendant about where Defendant and Mr. Vasquez were going. Defendant told Deputy Ward they were driving to Kentucky. Mr. Vasquez had already told Sergeant Darisse that he and Defendant were driving to West Virginia. Sergeant Darisse gave Mr. Vasquez a warning ticket for an improperly functioning brake light and returned Mr. Vasquez's license and registration. Sergeant Darisse testified that, at that point, Mr. Vasquez was free to leave. However, upon Sergeant Darisse's request, Mr. Vasquez consented to additional questioning. Sergeant Darisse asked Mr. Vasquez if he had any contraband in the vehicle. Mr. Vasquez replied that he did not. Sergeant Darisse then asked Mr. Vasquez if he could search the vehicle. Mr. Vasquez replied that, because the vehicle belonged to Defendant, Sergeant Darisse would have to ask Defendant.

Sergeant Darisse asked Defendant, who was still lying in the back seat, for consent to search the vehicle. Defendant consented to a search and exited the vehicle. Sergeant Darisse's search of the vehicle revealed cocaine.

Defendant filed a motion to suppress dated 21 January 2010 and an amended motion to suppress dated 4 March 2010, both of which the trial court denied in an order dated 25 March 2010. Defendant entered pleas of guilty to charges of attempted trafficking in cocaine by transportation and by possession, but Defendant reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari which was granted by our Court on 14 September 2010.

Defendant first argues that the trial court erred by concluding that Sergeant Darisse's initial stop of the vehicle “was constitutional, as [Sergeant] Darisse had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the ... vehicle and the driver were violating the laws of this State by operating a motor vehicle without a properly functioning brake light.”

Generally, an appellate court's review of a trial court's order on a motion to suppress “is strictly limited to a determination of whether its findings are supported by competent evidence, and in turn, whether the findings support the trial court's ultimate conclusion.” Where, however, the trial court's findings of fact are not challenged on appeal, they are deemed to be supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal.

State v. Roberson, 163 N.C.App. 129, 132, 592 S.E.2d 733, 735–36 (2004) (citations omitted). “[C]onclusions of law drawn from the findings of fact are ... reviewable de novo.” Huyck Corp. v. Town of Wake Forest, 86 N.C.App. 13, 15, 356 S.E.2d 599, 601 (1987) (citations omitted).

“A law enforcement officer may stop and briefly detain a vehicle and its occupants if the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot.” State v. Jackson, 199 N.C.App. 236, 241, 681 S.E.2d 492, 496 (2009) (citation omitted). However, an officer's determination regarding potential criminal activity must be objectively reasonable, and an officer's mistaken belief that a defendant has committed a traffic violation is not an objectively reasonable justification for a traffic stop. See State v. McLamb, 186 N.C.App. 124, 127–28, 649 S.E.2d 902, 904 (2007) (holding that an officer's mistaken belief that the defendant was speeding was not an objectively reasonable purpose for a traffic stop). A passenger in a vehicle which is stopped by a law enforcement officer is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and may accordingly challenge the constitutionality of the initial stop. See Jackson, 199 N.C.App. at 239–41, 681 S.E.2d at 495–96.

In the present case, the trial court made an unchallenged finding of fact that Sergeant Darisse's initial stop of the vehicle was based upon his observation that “the right brake light of the vehicle [did] not ... function as the left brake light of the vehicle came on as the ... vehicle slowed.” Defendant argues that Sergeant Darisse did not have reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle because the stop was based upon the mistaken belief that the malfunctioning brake light constituted a violation of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 20–129(g). The State, however, argues that Sergeant Darisse had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle because the malfunctioning brake light constituted a violation of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 20–129(d) and N.C. Gen.Stat. § 20–183.3. Based on the language of the statutes, we hold that the malfunction of a single brake light, where a vehicle has at least one functioning brake light, is not a violation of N.C.G.S. § 20–129(g), N.C.G.S. § 20–129(d), or N.C.G.S. § 20–183.3.

In matters of statutory construction, our primary task is to ensure that the purpose of the legislature, the legislative intent, is accomplished. Hunt v. Reinsurance Facility, 302 N.C. 274, 288, 275 S.E.2d 399, 405 (1981). Legislative purpose is first ascertained from the plain words of the statute. See Burgess v. Your House of Raleigh, 326 N.C. 205, 209, 388 S.E.2d 134, 136 (1990). Moreover, we are guided by the structure of the statute and certain canons of statutory construction. See, e.g., Media, Inc. v. McDowell County, 304 N.C. 427, 430–31, 284 S.E.2d 457, 461 (1981) ( “statutes dealing with the same subject matter must be construed in pari materia”); Builders, Inc. v. City of Winston–Salem, 302 N.C. 550, 556, 276 S.E.2d 443, 447 (1981) (“It is presumed that the legislature intended each portion to be given full effect and did not intend any provision to be mere surplusage”). Electric Supply Co. v. Swain Electric [Electrical] Co., 328 N.C. 651, 656, 403 S.E.2d 291, 294 (1991).

I. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 20–129(g)

Defendant contends that Sergeant Darisse mistakenly believed that the malfunctioning brake light constituted a violation of N.C.G.S. § 20–129(g), which states:

(g) No person shall sell or operate on the highways of the State any motor vehicle, motorcycle or motor-driven cycle, manufactured after December 31, 1955, unless it shall be equipped with a stop lamp on the rear of the vehicle. The stop lamp shall display a red or amber light visible from a distance of not less than 100 feet to the rear in normal sunlight, and shall be actuated upon application of the service (foot) brake. The stop lamp may be incorporated into a unit with one or more other rear lamps.

N.C. Gen.Stat. § 20–129(g) (2009) (emphasis added). Initially, we note that the language of N.C.G.S. § 20–129(g) demonstrates that the “stop lamp” required under that statute is synonymous with what is colloquially called a “brake light.” See N.C.G.S. § 20–129(g) (“The stop lamp ... shall be actuated upon application of the service (foot) brake.”) Because Sergeant Darisse testified that the vehicle's “right side brake light was out[,]” and the trial court's 25 March 2010 order and both parties' briefs use the term “brake light,” we will use the terms “brake light” and “stop lamp” interchangeably. The use of the articles “a” and “the” before the singular “stop lamp” throughout N.C.G.S. § 20–129(g) clearly conveys that, under the statute, only one stop lamp is required on the rear of a vehicle. Thus, the plain language of subsection (g) requires only one stop lamp on a vehicle.

In the present case, the trial court made an uncontested finding of fact that, at the time of the initiation of the traffic stop, “the left brake light of the vehicle came on as the ... vehicle slowed.” Because the left brake light was functioning properly, there was no violation of N.C.G.S. § 20–129(g) at the time of the initial stop.

II. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 20–129(d)

The State argues, however, that Sergeant Darisse had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle because the malfunctioning right brake light constituted a...