State v. Benters
Decision Date | 19 December 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 5A14.,5A14. |
Citation | 367 N.C. 660,766 S.E.2d 593 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Glenn Edward BENTERS. |
Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Derrick C. Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.
Brock & Meece, P.A., Wilmington, by C. Scott Holmes, for defendant-appellee.
In this appeal we consider the sufficiency of an affidavit in support of an application for a search warrant. We hold that under the totality of the circumstances, the affidavit failed to provide a substantial basis for the magistrate to conclude that probable cause existed. The information available to law enforcement officers from an anonymous tip and from the officers' corroborative investigation was qualitatively and quantitatively deficient, and the affidavit's material allegations were uniformly conclusory. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals.
The affidavit at issue provides in relevant part as follows:
That same day, a magistrate issued a warrant based upon this affidavit authorizing a search of defendant's home and outbuildings on his property. Law enforcement officers immediately executed the warrant and seized fifty-five marijuana plants; various indoor growing supplies, including lights, timers, chemicals, water pumps, flexible tubing, humidifiers, and several boxes of Ziploc plastic bags; numerous firearms and ammunition; and $1540 in cash.
A grand jury indicted defendant for maintaining a dwelling to keep a controlled substance (two counts), manufacture of a Schedule VI controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, trafficking in marijuana by manufacture, trafficking in marijuana by possession, and possession with intent to sell or deliver a Schedule VI controlled substance. On 20 February 2012, defendant moved to suppress the items seized under the search warrant, arguing that the search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 20 of the North Carolina Constitution. On 24 September 2012, the trial court entered an order allowing defendant's motion. The State timely appealed to the Court of Appeals.
A majority of the panel of the Court of Appeals concluded that the affidavit at issue was not supported by probable cause and affirmed the trial court's order allowing defendant's motion to suppress. State v. Benters, ––– N.C.App. ––––, ––––, 750 S.E.2d 584, 591 (2013). The dissent agreed with the majority "that the affidavit did not contain a sufficient factual basis to establish probable cause under the confidential informant standard" because "L[ieutenant] Ferguson's description of the source's reliability was merely conclusory." Id. at ––––, 750 S.E.2d at 591–92 (Hunter, Robert C., J., dissenting). The dissent, however, would have concluded that the affidavit was supported by probable cause under an anonymous tip standard because "the affidavit contained detailed information provided by the source which was independently corroborated by experienced officers." Id. at ––––, 750 S.E.2d at 591. The State appeals to this Court based on the dissent. N.C.G.S. § 7A–30(2) (2013). We now affirm.
The issue before this Court is whether the facts and circumstances set forth in the affidavit establish probable cause. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
Arrington, 311 N.C. at 638, 319 S.E.2d at 257–58 ( ). " ‘[P]robable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Williams
...be found in the place to be searched. Gates , 462 U.S. at 238, 103 S.Ct. at 2332, 76 L.Ed. 2d at 548 ; e.g. , State v. Benters , 367 N.C. 660, 664, 766 S.E.2d 593, 598 (2014).").Courts interpreting the Fourth Amendment have expressed a "strong preference for searches conducted pursuant to a......
- State v. Terrell, COA17-268
-
Bunnell v. State
...alone provides the requisite substantial basis, we would be granting the three words talismanic qualities. See State v. Benters , 367 N.C. 660, 766 S.E.2d 593, 603 (2014) (finding an affidavit "insufficient to establish probable cause" when concluding otherwise would require "such a heavy r......
-
State v. Jackson
...of a de novo review." Arrington , 311 N.C. at 638, 319 S.E.2d at 258. However, this deference is not unlimited. State v. Benters , 367 N.C. 660, 665, 766 S.E.2d 593, 598 (2014). "[U]nder the totality of the circumstances test, a reviewing court must determine ‘whether the evidence as a whol......