State v. Doughty

• Decision Date: 15 November 2022
• Docket Number: COA21-720
• Citation: 2022 NCCOA 763
• Parties: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RAMISH TIQUNA DOUGHTY, Defendant
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

2022-NCCOA-763

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RAMISH TIQUNA DOUGHTY, Defendant

No. COA21-720

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

November 15, 2022

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 May 2022.

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 26 March 2021 by Judge G Frank Jones in New Hanover County, Nos. 20 CRS 2861, 20 CRS 53036 Superior Court.

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General Martin T. McCracken, for the State.

Blass Firm, PLLC, by Danielle Blass, for Defendant-Appellant.

CARPENTER, Judge.

¶ 1 Ramish Tiquna Doughty ("Defendant") appeals from a final judgment entered upon a plea agreement. Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the trial court's findings of fact in its written suppression order (the "Order") are not supported by competent evidence. He further contests several of the trial court's conclusions of law. After careful review, we conclude the initial search of Defendant's vehicle was unlawful. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the Order of the trial court.

I. Factual &Procedural Background

¶ 2 On 12 June 2020, Defendant filed a motion to suppress any evidence obtained from his vehicle, incident to a 28 April 2020 traffic stop and a subsequent search of his vehicle. On 24 February 2021, a hearing was conducted before the Honorable G. Frank Jones, judge presiding, to consider Defendant's motion.

¶ 3 The trial court first heard testimony from Officer Caitlin Meyer ("Officer Meyer") as to the legality of her stop of Defendant's vehicle. Officer Meyer testified she effected the stop at approximately 12:32 a.m. on 28 April 2020. Prior to stopping the vehicle, Officer Meyer formed an opinion that the vehicle's window tinting was darker than the legal limit set in North Carolina. Officer Meyer previously observed the same vehicle in the daytime and noticed the tinting appeared "extremely dark," although she was not permitted to conduct traffic stops at that time due to a COVID-19 policy employed by the Wilmington Police Department. This policy was lifted on the day of, and shortly before, the stop.

¶ 4 After Officer Meyer activated the emergency lights on her vehicle, she followed Defendant for approximately one block. She opined it was a "slow stop" because Defendant took "a longer time than normal" to pull over. When Defendant pulled over, three officers located nearby arrived within one minute. Officer Meyer then approached Defendant's vehicle on the driver's side. She observed Defendant's window was down "maybe two or three inches," which she testified was "very unusual" of someone pulled over speaking with the stopping officer. Officer Meyer did not testify as to whether she had stopped any other vehicles during the COVID-19 pandemic or whether the pandemic influenced drivers' willingness to roll down their windows during traffic stops. Defendant ultimately produced a vehicle registration, but not a driver's license.

¶ 5 On cross examination as to the stop, Officer Meyer testified Defendant had not engaged in any "evasive maneuvers or reckless driving," although she reiterated Defendant's stop was a "slow" pull over. She further testified there were no vehicles parked on the block where Defendant pulled over. No video evidence was admitted as to the traffic stop.

¶ 6 After hearing arguments from the State and counsel for Defendant as to the stop, the trial court orally announced its finding that Officer Meyer had "a reasonable and articulable suspicion that [D]efendant committed a violation in her presence of North Carolina General Statute [§] 20-127." Accordingly, the trial court denied Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the stop.

¶ 7 The trial court then heard testimony as to the legality of the search of Defendant's vehicle. Officer Meyer testified Corporal Allan Mitchell ("Corporal Mitchell") of the Wilmington Police Department arrived on the scene, and Corporal Mitchell spoke with Defendant. Defendant ignored multiple commands from the officers for him to exit the vehicle. Officer Meyer described Defendant's behavior as "aggressive, combative, [and] uncooperative." Officer Meyer's partner, New Hanover County Deputy Sheriff Paul McMahon ("Deputy McMahon"),^[1] advised Officer Meyer that Defendant "had very recent firearm charges."

¶ 8 Based on Defendant's behavior, slow stop, Officer Meyer's belief regarding Defendant's recent firearm charges, and Officer Meyer's inability to see inside the vehicle, Officer Meyer decided to remove Defendant from the vehicle to frisk him and the vehicle due to the danger she believed he posed.

¶ 9 During cross examination of Officer Meyer, counsel for Defendant admitted into evidence, without objection by the State, footage from Officer Meyer's body camera worn during the stop.

¶ 10 Deputy McMahon testified he assisted with removing Defendant from the vehicle. He unbuckled Defendant's seatbelt and, along with Officer Meyer, grabbed Defendant's arms or hands. The officers performed a protective pat-down of Defendant and found no contraband or weapons on his person. Three officers stood with Defendant at the rear of the vehicle.

¶ 11 Corporal Mitchell testified he searched the vehicle and found "what appeared to be a marijuana roach sitting on top of the ice" in a red Solo cup in the vehicle's center console. Corporal Mitchell notified Officer Meyer that Defendant could be arrested for drug paraphernalia and searched further. During Corporal Mitchell's testimony, the State admitted a video of Corporal Mitchell's body camera footage obtained during the stop to "assist in explaining what all happened" that night.

¶ 12 The officers detained Defendant, and Deputy McMahon began searching the rest of the vehicle and found a pink firearm under the front passenger seat as well as what appeared to be heroin inside the center console. Defendant was placed under arrest for resisting an officer, possessing a Schedule I controlled substance, and possessing a stolen firearm.

¶ 13 At the conclusion of the suppression hearing, the trial court orally denied Defendant's motion to suppress with respect to the stop, the Terry^[2] frisk of Defendant, and the protective search of the vehicle. It found "the protective search of the [vehicle] was reasonable and limited to the means and manners necessary to effectuate a search for weapons" based upon the totality of the circumstances. In addition, the trial court found "the discovery of marijuana paraphernalia incident to the protective search constituted probable cause for the arrest of the defendant as well as a search of the vehicle." Counsel for Defendant notified the trial court of Defendant's intention to enter notice of appeal from the Order.

¶ 14 On 21 September 2020, a New Hanover County grand jury indicted Defendant on charges of possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14- 34(a); resisting a public officer, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-223; possession of a stolen firearm, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-71.1; and felony possession of a Schedule I controlled substance, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(a)(3).

¶ 15 On 16 March 2021, the trial court entered its written Order, in which it made the following findings of fact:

1. At about half an hour after midnight on April 28, 2020 Officer C. Meyer (hereinafter 'Meyer') of the Wilmington Police Department was assigned to the Mobile Field Force, with a specific responsibility for suppressing gang and gun violence patrolling the area of Campbell Street and Anderson Street here in Wilmington[.]

2. At that time and location, Meyer was stationary in a marked patrol vehicle speaking with fellow officer Moore who was in a separate vehicle. Meyer observed a small, red, two-door vehicle drive past her on Campbell Street which she recognized as an automobile regularly driven by . . . [D]efendant[.]

3. Meyer was aware that on a recent or previous occasion, [D]efendant had been stopped by law enforcement and that a firearm was found in his possession in the vehicle and further that the criminal charge resulting therefrom had been dismissed.

4. Meyer had previously observed this vehicle in daylight multiple times and had formed the opinion at those earlier times and places that the vehicle's windows were tinted in violation of North Carolina General Statute § 20-127, such that the total light transmission of the tinted windows was not at least 35 percent. Meyer did not conduct a traffic stop at those earlier times and places due to her then extant departmental (COVID-19 related) polices prohibiting patrol officers from making vehicle stops.

5. Meyer had for several years been a patrol officer and had had many occasions to observe other vehicles with similar window tint and also many occasions to determine the numerical percentages of light transmission of such window tint using the naked eye and comparing that with the result from mechanical devices designed for that purpose[.]

6. At the time of this incident, Meyer again formed the opinion that the vehicle's windows were illegally tinted. Meyer, as a night officer, was accustomed to making such observations at night and was unable, because of the dark tint, to see into this vehicle.

7. Meyer then pulled behind the vehicle and activated her emergency equipment to conduct a traffic stop as soon as the vehicle turned north onto North 8th Street. Meyer did not, apart from the window tint, observe any other motor vehicle violation[

...