State v. Styles

• Decision Date: 07 August 2007
• Docket Number: No. COA06-684.,COA06-684.
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Christopher Don STYLES.
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

648 S.E.2d 214

STATE of North Carolina v. Christopher Don STYLES.

No. COA06-684.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

August 7, 2007.

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 3 November 2005 by Judge C. Preston Cornelius in Swain County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 April 2007.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Rudy Renfer, and Assistant Attorney General William B. Crumpler, for the State.

Charlotte Gail Blake, Jefferson, for defendant-appellant.

STEELMAN, Judge.

The arresting Officer had probable cause to stop defendant's vehicle, and thus the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the stop and the evidence procured as a result of the subsequent search of the vehicle.

On 28 February 2004, Officer Greg Jones of the Bryson City Police Department was on duty around 1:00 in the morning traveling on Main Street, a three lane road. There were two lanes in Officer Jones' direction of travel and one lane in the opposite direction. Directly in front of Officer Jones' patrol vehicle and proceeding in the same direction as Officer Jones was a vehicle operated by Christopher Don Styles ("defendant"). Defendant changed lanes without signaling. Officer Jones stopped defendant's vehicle, approached the driver's side door, and made verbal contact with defendant. Officer Jones immediately detected an odor of marijuana about defendant's person. Defendant declined to consent to a search of his vehicle. Officer Jones then deployed a drug dog which was in his patrol vehicle. The dog indicated that narcotics were present in or on the vehicle. Officer Jones then initiated a search of the interior of defendant's vehicle. He discovered a small amount of marijuana and a pipe. Officer Jones placed defendant under arrest. A subsequent pat-down search of defendant's person revealed methamphetamine.

On 29 June 2005, defendant was indicted for possession of schedule II controlled substances, drug paraphernalia, and marijuana. On 24 October 2005, defendant filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the stop of defendant's vehicle. On 31 October 2005, Judge Cornelius denied defendant's motion. Defendant pled guilty to all of the charges on that same day, expressly reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A-979(b). The trial court sentenced defendant to 6-8 months imprisonment. This sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on supervised probation for 18 months. Defendant appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress.

In his sole argument on appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress. We disagree.

Our review of a motion to suppress is limited to determining whether the trial court's findings of fact were supported by competent evidence, in which event they are binding on appeal, and whether those findings support the trial court's conclusions of law. State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 134, 291 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1982). The trial court's conclusions of law are reviewable de novo. State v. Brooks, 337 N.C. 132, 141, 446 S.E.2d 579, 585 (1994).

Defendant was stopped for the violation of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 20-154(a):

The driver of any vehicle upon a highway or public vehicular area before starting, stopping or turning from a direct line shall first see that such movement can be made in safety . . . and whenever the operation of any other vehicle may be affected by such movement, shall give a signal as required in this section, plainly visible to the driver of such other vehicle, of the intention to make such movement.

N.C. Gen.Stat. § 20-154(a) (2005). N.C. Gen.Stat. § 20-154(a) has been held to apply to the type of movement defendant made here: changing lanes. See Sass v. Thomas, 90 N.C.App. 719, 723, 370 S.E.2d 73, 75-6 (1988).

In the instant case, defendant assigns error to the following findings of fact:

The officer did at that point stop the vehicle for an investigatory stop.

The Court will find that the stop by the officer was an investigatory stop in regards to a moving violation that he observed committed in his presence.

That he had probable cause to stop the vehicle.

A "traffic stop based on an officer's [reasonable] suspicion that a traffic violation is being committed, but which can only be verified by stopping the vehicle, such as drunk driving or driving with a revoked license, is classified as an investigatory stop...." State v. Wilson, 155 N.C.App. 89, 94, 574 S.E.2d 93, 98 (2002) (alteration and emphasis in original) (quotation omitted). However, a stop pursuant to a readily observed traffic violation will be valid if it was supported by probable cause. State v. Barnhill, 166 N.C.App. 228, 231, 601 S.E.2d 215, 217 (2004). Probable cause exists when, based upon the facts and circumstances within his knowledge, a reasonably prudent law enforcement officer believes that the defendant has or was committing a traffic violation. State v. Hernandez, 170 N.C.App. 299, 306, 612 S.E.2d 420, 425 (2005).

It is clear from the trial court's findings of fact that defendant was traveling immediately in front of Officer Jones. Defendant changed lanes without signaling. Because he readily observed a violation of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 20-154(a), Officer Jones had probable cause to stop defendant's vehicle.

Defendant contends that the trial court's findings of fact regarding an "investigatory stop" were unsupported by the evidence, and that because the only reason for the stop was an alleged traffic violation, no investigatory stop could be made. The trial court's mention of an "investigatory stop" was in fact erroneous because Officer Jones' stop of defendant was based upon a readily observed traffic violation, requiring that Officer Jones have probable cause instead of a reasonable suspicion to stop defendant. However, "`irrelevant findings in a trial court's decision do not warrant a reversal of the trial court.'" Hernandez, at 305, 612 S.E.2d at 424 (citing Goodson v. Goodson, 145 N.C.App. 356, 360, 551 S.E.2d 200, 204 (2001)). We have already determined that the trial court properly found that Officer Jones had probable cause to stop defendant. Therefore, the trial court's findings regarding an "investigatory stop" do not warrant a reversal of the trial court.

The trial court made the following conclusions of law:

State and constitutional rights were not violated in this investigatory stop.

That there was probable cause for the stop and probable cause for the arrest, and the motion to suppress is denied.

The trial court's conclusions of law must reflect a correct application of the law to the facts found. Barnhill, at 230-31, 601 S.E.2d at 217. As the trial court erroneously concluded that an investigatory stop occurred without violation of defendant's State and federal constitutional rights, we must apply the correct standard and determine whether defendant's State and federal constitutional rights were violated in the stop, applying the probable cause standard. See id. at 231, 601 S.E.2d at 217.

Probable cause exists where a reasonable law enforcement officer readily observes a traffic violation. See Hernandez, at 306, 612 S.E.2d at 425. In the instant case, Officer Jones had probable cause to stop and search defendant's car. Therefore, neither defendant's State nor federal constitutional rights were violated. See State v. Frederick, 31 N.C.App. 503, 506-07, 230 S.E.2d 421, 423 (1976).

The trial court's findings of fact were supported by competent evidence and those findings support the trial court's conclusions of law. "As a result, [Officer Jones'] stop did not violate defendant's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Since the stop was valid, any evidence which resulted from the stop need not be suppressed." Barnhill, at 233, 601 S.E.2d at 219.

Defendant argues that this case is controlled by the recent North Carolina Supreme Court case of State v. Ivey, 360 N.C. 562, 633 S.E.2d 459 (2006). In Ivey, our Supreme Court held that an Officer did not have probable cause to stop the defendant for violation of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 20-154(a) when the defendant's maneuver could not have affected the Officer or any other vehicle. Id. at 565, 633 S.E.2d at 461-62. The defendant in Ivey was making a right-hand turn at an intersection where he could only turn right. Id. at 563, 633 S.E.2d at 460. The facts of the instant case are readily distinguishable. Defendant was traveling immediately in front of Officer Jones on a road...