State v. Streeter, 723SC676

• Decision Date: 20 December 1972
• Docket Number: No. 723SC676,723SC676
• Citation: 17 N.C.App. 48,193 S.E.2d 347
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. George STREETER.

Page 347

193 S.E.2d 347

17 N.C.App. 48

STATE of North Carolina v. George STREETER.

No. 723SC676.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 20, 1972.

Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan, by Asst. Atty. Gen., Christine Y. Denson, Raleigh, for the State.

William E. Grantmyre, Greenville, for defendant.

BROCK, Judge.

While on routine police patrol, Officer Bullock observed defendant standing beside N.C. Highway 43 in a deserted area in the City of Greenville at 2:45 a.m. on 26 October 1971. Defendant whom the officer did not know, was wearing a blue shirt with long sleeves and a shirttail. The shirttail was hanging below defendant's waist and outside his trousers. Because of the hour and the proximity of defendant to some business offices, Officer Bullock stopped his police cruiser to inquire about defendant's identity and purpose for being in the area. Officer Bullock walked around his vehicle and engaged defendant in conversation. While he was talking with defendant, Officer Bullock noticed something bulging under his shirt on the right hand side about where a revolver in a holster would be. Bullock thought the bulging object was a revolver and he reached out and touched it through the cloth of defendant's shirt. He felt a metal object and the officer believed it was a weapon. Bullock told defendant to stand still, and he raised defendant's shirttail exposing an assortment of items: a prybar, hammer, screwdriver, flashlight, pair of gloves, and money bag. Defendant was then placed under arrest for possession of burglary tools.

The officer's testimony of what he found under defendant's shirttail was admitted in evidence over defense objections after an adequate voir dire and findings of fact by the trial judge. The items so found by the officer were also admitted in evidence as State's exhibits over defense objections.

Defendant contends that the search of his person was illegal because it was in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, and that the fruits of the search should have been excluded from evidence.

Defendant does not argue that Officer Bullock could not legally or constitutionally momentarily stop and detain defendant for the purpose of determining his identity and purpose. He is well advised upon this point. '(A) police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest.' Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Accord, Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972). 'The Fourth Amendment does not require a policeman who lacks the precise level of information necessary for probable cause to arrest to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape.' Adams v. Williams, Supra. 'A brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time.' Adams v. Williams, Supra.

Defendant argues strenuously that the officer had no probable cause to arrest defendant for possession of burglary tools and therefore no right to search for them. The argument that the officer had no probable...