State v. Ladd
| Decision Date | 15 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. COA15–1071.,COA15–1071. |
| Citation | 782 S.E.2d 397,246 N.C.App. 295 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Timothy LADD, Jr. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
246 N.C.App. 295
782 S.E.2d 397
STATE of North Carolina
v.
Timothy LADD, Jr.
No. COA15–1071.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
March 15, 2016.
Attorney General, Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General, Phillip T. Reynolds, for the State.
Rudolf Widenhouse & Fialko, Chapel Hill, by M. Gordon Widenhouse Jr., for defendant-appellant.
TYSON, Judge.
Timothy Allen Ladd, Jr. ("Defendant") appeals from judgment entered after he pled guilty to four counts of secretly using a photographic
device with the intent to capture images of another person pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–202(f). We reverse the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress and vacate the plea and judgment entered thereon and appealed from.
I. Factual Background
On 20 November 2013, a female employee of the Currituck County Fire/EMS discovered an alarm clock located on the windowsill of the women's bunkroom facing two beds in the room. Two other female employees stated they noticed the clock was also present in the women's bunkroom on 18 November 2013. The clock contained an audio and video recorder, which activated when its sensor picked up a motion or noise. The clock also contained a Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) card.
Defendant was employed by Currituck County Fire/EMS as an EMT from June 2012 to December 2013. Defendant had slept in the women's bunkroom during his overnight shift. After the "alarm clock" was discovered, Chief Robert Glover of Currituck County Fire/EMS conducted a personnel interview with Defendant. Also present were Currituck County Sherriff's Sergeant Jeff Walker and Wesley Liverman, President of the Lower Currituck Volunteer Fire Department.
Defendant consented to a search of his personal laptop and his smartphone, but only to those two items, during the interview. He did not consent to a search of any other personal electronic or data storage devices. After the interview, Sergeant Walker escorted Defendant to Defendant's vehicle to retrieve the laptop, which was located inside a black nylon carrying case.
Sergeant Walker saw and seized a second laptop located on the vehicle's floorboard. Defendant consented to the search of the second laptop. Sergeant Walker and Defendant went to the Currituck County Sheriff's substation for Sergeant Walker to search both laptops and the smartphone.
Sergeant Walker did not find any incriminating evidence on either laptop or on the smartphone. He requested permission from Defendant to take the laptops to the Sheriff's Department main office for a further search of the contents of the computers. Defendant consented and left both laptops contained within the black nylon laptop bag with Sergeant Walker. Sergeant Walker gave the laptops to Sheriff's Detective Ruby Stallings.
Detective Stallings searched the contents of the black nylon laptop bag and discovered several external data storage devices. These included an external hard drive, numerous thumb drives, and micro secure digital cards. Detective Stallings searched the external hard drive and found video images of four or five women undressing or completely naked. The record on appeal is unclear whether any of these recovered images were taken in the EMS women's bunkroom.
Based upon her discovery of these images, Detective Stallings obtained a warrant to search the other external data storage devices located in Defendant's laptop bag. Defendant was charged with seven counts of secretly using a photographic device based upon images recovered after the search of the external data storage devices located within his laptop bag. On 3 February 2014, he was indicted by the Grand Jury on four of those counts.
On 10 March 2014, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence found by Detective Stallings when she viewed the external hard drive. The motion was denied and Defendant conditionally pled guilty, preserving his right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress. The trial court entered judgment for four counts of secretly using a photographic device. Defendant appeals.
II. Issues
Defendant argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of non-consensual and unreasonable searches without a valid warrant of both his laptop bag and of the external data storage devices found inside. While the State contends these searches were consensual and constitutional, it also argues this case should be remanded so further evidence can be presented in compliance with State v. Salinas, 366 N.C. 119, 729 S.E.2d 63 (2012). We address both arguments below.
III. Fourth Amendment Analysis
Defendant argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of non-consensual and unreasonable searches in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States; Article 1, Sections 5, 19, 20, and 23 of the Constitution of North Carolina ; and North Carolina General Statutes §§ 15A–221 –223.
"An order finally denying a motion to suppress evidence may be reviewed upon an appeal from a judgment of conviction, including a judgment entered upon a plea of guilty." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A–979(b) (2015). The fact that Defendant pled guilty to a crime arising from possession of evidence seized during a search does not preclude him from appealing the trial court's motion to suppress. See State v. Jordan, 40 N.C.App. 412, 413, 252 S.E.2d 857, 858 (1979).
Defendant properly reserved his right to appeal by notifying the State and the trial court of his intention to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress during the pre-trial hearing and during the plea negotiations. See State v. McBride, 120 N.C.App. 623, 625, 463 S.E.2d 403, 404 (1995), disc. review allowed in part, 343 N.C. 126, 468 S.E.2d 790, aff'd, 344 N.C. 623, 476 S.E.2d 106 (1996).
A. Standard of Review
The trial court's findings of fact regarding a motion to suppress are conclusive and binding on appeal if supported by competent evidence. State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 134, 291 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1982). This Court determines whether the trial court's findings of fact support its conclusions of law. Id.
We review the trial court's conclusions of law on a motion to suppress de novo. State v. Edwards, 185 N.C.App. 701, 702, 649 S.E.2d 646, 648, disc. rev. denied, 362 N.C. 89, 656 S.E.2d 281 (2007). " ‘Under a
de novo review, the court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment’ for that of the lower tribunal." State v. Williams, 362 N.C. 628, 632–33, 669 S.E.2d 290, 294 (2008) (quoting In re Appeal of The Greens of Pine Glen Ltd. P'ship, 356 N.C. 642, 647, 576 S.E.2d 316, 319 (2003) ).
B. Consent
Generally, if an individual consents to a search of himself or of his property, the Fourth Amendment is not implicated. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2043–44, 36 L.Ed.2d 854, 858 (1973) ("It is equally well settled that one of the specifically established exceptions to the requirements of both a warrant and probable cause is a search that is conducted pursuant to consent."); see State v. Belk, 268 N.C. 320, 322–23, 150 S.E.2d 481, 483–84 (1966).
However, a consensual search is limited by and to the scope of the consent given. See State v. Jones, 96 N.C.App. 389, 397, 386 S.E.2d 217, 222 (1989). The scope of the defendant's consent is "constrained by the bounds of reasonableness: what the reasonable person would expect." State v. Stone, 362 N.C. 50, 54, 653 S.E.2d 414, 418 (2007) ; see also Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 1803, 114 L.Ed.2d 297, 302 (1991) ( "The standard for measuring the scope of a suspect's consent under the Fourth Amendment is that of ‘objective’ reasonableness—what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect?").
During the hearing on the motion to suppress, the parties stipulated to the facts as set out by Defendant's counsel's affidavit, which accompanied Defendant's motion to suppress. In the trial court's order denying the motion, the court stated, "the Court so finds the facts as alleged in the Defendant's affidavit." The court did not consider any other evidence.
The relevant stipulated facts are:
8. Also during the interview, Mr. Ladd was asked for his consent to search his personal laptop and smartphone.
9. Timothy Ladd, Jr. consented only to the search of his personal laptop and smartphone.
....
14. Mr. Ladd consented to the search of the laptop found on the floorboard of his vehicle.
....
21. That Mr. Ladd consented to further review of the laptops by the Currituck County Sheriff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Terrell, COA17-268
...has "reasonable and substantial" privacy interests in the digital information stored on a thumb drive. See State v. Ladd , 246 N.C. App. 295, 303–04, 782 S.E.2d 397, 403 (2016) ("Defendant's privacy interests in the digital data stored on these [external data] storage devices are both reaso......
-
State v. Carpenter, COA16-973
...App. at 476, 696 S.E.2d at 730. "[A] consensual search is limited by and to the scope of the consent given." State v. Ladd , ––– N.C. App. ––––, ––––, 782 S.E.2d 397, 400 (2016). "The standard for measuring the scope of a suspect's consent under the Fourth Amendment is that of ‘objective’ r......
-
State v. Hunter
....... A search occurs when the government invades reasonable expectations of privacy to obtain information." State v. Ladd , 246 N.C. App. 295, 301, 782 S.E.2d 397, 401 (2016) (citations omitted). "Officers who lawfully approach a car and look inside with a flashlight do not conduct a ‘searc......
-
State v. Hunter
... ... "[W]hat the Constitution forbids is not all searches and ... seizures, but unreasonable searches and seizures ... A search occurs when the government invades reasonable ... expectations of privacy to obtain information." ... State v. Ladd, 246 N.C.App. 295, 301, 782 S.E.2d ... 397, 401 (2016) (citations omitted). "Officers who ... lawfully approach a car and look inside with a flashlight do ... not conduct a 'search' ... within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." State ... v. Brooks, 337 N.C. 132, 144, 446 S.E.2d 579, 587 ... ...