State v. Pike

• Decision Date: 18 July 2000
• Docket Number: No. COA99-675.,COA99-675.
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Glenn Edward PIKE.

532 S.E.2d 543

139 NC App. 96

STATE of North Carolina v. Glenn Edward PIKE.

No. COA99-675.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 18, 2000.

Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General C. Norman Young, Jr., for the State.

Tucker, Slaughter & Singletary, P.A., by Robert L. Slaughter, Albemarle, for defendant-appellee.

HUNTER, Judge.

This case presents a question of first impression for North Carolina, that is, whether a Wildlife Resources Commission officer may stop to conduct a safety inspection of a motor vessel on the waters of North Carolina without having any reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the stop. Although we refuse to expand the ruling in this case to other factual situations, we hold that under these circumstances the stop was reasonable and therefore did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore, we reverse and remand.

The facts in this case are undisputed. On 23 May 1998, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Officer James Pope ("Officer Pope") and Sergeant Howell were patrolling Badin Lake in Stanly County. Officer Pope testified that he and Sergeant Howell were checking every vessel within that vicinity on that night. At about 11:45 p.m., the two men observed a pontoon boat in the area, being operated by Glenn Edward Pike ("defendant"). Neither officer observed any illegal activity at the time of the stop, nor did they observe any activity which would violate any rules or regulations of the Wildlife Resources Commission. Nevertheless, as they neared the pontoon vessel, Officer Pope activated a blue strobe light—signaling the pontoon operator to stop, which defendant did immediately. Officer Pope then switched on a "bright white light, which is a take down light which illuminates the whole interior of a vessel." The purpose of activating the "take down light" is so the officer can see anything, everything and everybody on the vessel. The officers announced their presence, informed defendant that they were going to conduct a safety check of the vessel, and then did so. The officers never boarded the vessel. However, after the safety inspection, defendant was arrested and charged with the criminal offense of operating a motor vessel while impaired (OWI) in violation of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75A-10(b1)(2).

At trial, defendant entered a plea of not guilty, was tried and found guilty. Upon giving notice of appeal to the superior court, defendant "filed a written Motion to Suppress seeking to suppress evidence of the stop of his pontoon boat and attached thereto his Affidavit dated the same date." Following the 16 September 1998 hearing on defendant's motion, the trial court concluded that the stop of defendant's vessel was not based upon any reasonable suspicion of illegal activity and thus, violated defendant's Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Therefore, the trial court suppressed the evidence of the stop which resulted in the dismissal of the charges against defendant. The State appeals.

The State brings forward only one question for this Court's review: whether the trial court committed prejudicial error by finding that the stop of defendant's vessel violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, thus requiring the evidence obtained from that stop to be suppressed and the charges against defendant dismissed.

It is well established that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

U.S. Const. amendment IV. Our courts therefore, have ruled that "[w]hether a [stop,] search or seizure is reasonable is to be determined on the facts of each individual case." State v. Boone, 293 N.C. 702, 709, 239 S.E.2d 459, 463 (1977). Furthermore, although not specifically listed in the Amendment, the United States Supreme Court has held that there can be some expectancy of privacy with regard to motor vehicles and vessels; however, "under the overarching principle of `reasonableness' embodied in the Fourth Amendment, ... the important factual differences between vessels located in waters offering ready access to the open sea and automobiles on principal thoroughfares ... are sufficient to require a different result...." United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U.S. 579, 588, 103 S.Ct. 2573, 2580, 77 L.Ed.2d 22, 31 (1983) (emphasis added). Nevertheless, whether the facts involve the stop of a vessel or that of a motor vehicle, to be allowable under the Fourth Amendment the stop must be reasonable, and reasonableness is a matter of balance. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979)

. "Though slightly different tests have been applied, all suspicionless [stop,] search and seizure cases balance governmental interest against individual intrusion in some fashion." Schenekl v. State, 996 S.W.2d 305, 309, n. 3 (Tex.Ct.App.1999).

[T]he permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests. Implemented in this manner, the reasonableness standard usually requires, at a minimum, that the facts upon which an intrusion is based be capable of measurement against "an objective standard," whether this be probable cause or a less stringent test. In those situations in which the balance of interests precludes insistence upon "some quantum of individualized suspicion," other safeguards are generally relied upon to assure that the individual's reasonable expectation of privacy is not "subject to the discretion of the official in the field." Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930....

Prouse, 440 U.S. at 654-55, 99 S.Ct. at 1396-97, 59 L.Ed.2d at 667-68 (footnotes omitted).

The State's interest in the case at bar is the same as articulated in Klutz v. Beam, 374 F.Supp. 1129 (W.D.N.C.1973), to ensure boating and waterway safety for all North Carolinians. Likewise, the State relies on the Boating Safety Act, N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75A et seq., to grant it the authority exercised by Officer Pope and Sergeant Howell. The pertinent section reads:

Every wildlife protector and every other law-enforcement officer of this State and its subdivisions shall have the authority to enforce the provisions of this Chapter and in the exercise thereof shall have authority to stop any vessel subject to this Chapter; and, after having identified himself in his official capacity, shall have authority to board and inspect any vessel subject to this Chapter.

N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75A-17(a) (1999) (emphasis added). Furthermore,

(a) Inspectors and protectors are granted the powers of peace officers anywhere in this State, and beyond its boundaries to the extent provided by law, in enforcing all matters within their respective subject-matter jurisdiction....

...

(c) The jurisdiction of protectors extends to all matters within the jurisdiction of the Wildlife Resources Commission, whether set out in this Chapter, Chapter 75A, Chapter 143, Chapter 143B, or elsewhere. The Wildlife Resources Commission is specifically granted jurisdiction over all aspects of:

(1) Boating and water safety;

...

(d)(1) In addition to law enforcement authority granted elsewhere, a protector has the authority to enforce criminal laws under the following circumstances:

(1) When the protector has probable cause to believe that a person committed a criminal offense in his presence and at the time of the violation the protector is engaged in the enforcement of laws otherwise within his jurisdiction....

N.C. Gen.Stat. § 113-136(a), (c), (d)(1) (1999) (emphasis added).

By reason of the foregoing statutory authority, it is undisputed that Officer Pope and Sergeant Howell, at some point, would have had the authority to inspect vessels on Badin Lake, where defendant was boating. Furthermore, our statute clearly requires no articulable suspicion or probable cause to stop a vessel for a safety check. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75A-17(a). However, because it is also undisputed that the wildlife officers had no articulable suspicion or probable cause, we must then determine what "other safeguards are [to be] relied upon to assure that the [defendant's] reasonable expectation of privacy is not `subject to the discretion of the official in the field.'" Prouse, 440 U.S. at 655, 99 S.Ct. at 1397, 59 L.Ed.2d at 668 (quoting Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 532, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 1733, 18 L.Ed.2d 930, 937 (1967)). Since this case is one of first impression for North Carolina, we look to other jurisdictions for guidance.

Just recently, the State of Texas dealt with the very issue at hand. We briefly recite the facts. At about midnight, a Texas game warden was patrolling Lake Lewisville in his marked patrol boat when he noticed the defendant's boat pulling out of the marina. Soon thereafter, by authority of Texas' Parks and Wildlife Code, the warden, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, stopped and boarded defendant's boat for a water safety check. Finding defendant "having trouble answering [the warden's] questions,... fumbling with his fingers, and ... smell[ing] of alcohol," the warden "performed a horizontal gaze nystagmus test on [defendant] and detected positive indications of intoxication." Schenekl v. State, 996 S.W.2d at 308. Consequently, the warden arrested defendant for boating while intoxicated. Id.

At trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence of intoxication resulting from the stop, arguing that his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure had...