State v. Williams

• Decision Date: 05 March 1980
• Docket Number: No. 23,23
• Citation: 263 S.E.2d 571,299 N.C. 529
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Preston WILLIAMS and Angela Millander.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Page 571

263 S.E.2d 571

299 N.C. 529

STATE of North Carolina v. Preston WILLIAMS and Angela Millander.

No. 23.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 5, 1980.

Atty. Gen. Rufus L. Edmisten by Asst. Atty. Gen. Ralf F. Haskell, Raleigh, for the State.

Billy Sandlin, Jacksonville, for defendant, Preston Williams.

Jimmy F. Gaylor, Jacksonville, for defendant, Angela Millander.

BROCK, Justice.

The sole question for review by this Court is the admissibility of letters and photographs seized by deputies of the Onslow County Sheriff's Department during a search of the mobile home occupied by the defendants. The deputies searched the mobile home pursuant to a validly issued "occupant warrant" which specified heroin as the object of the search. From the trailer's bathroom, a substance later determined to be heroin was seized, and after the heroin was discovered, letters, and photographs which had been seen earlier were also taken from the adjoining bedroom. For the reasons which follow, we hold that the letters and photographs, though not specifically listed on the warrant as objects of the search, were properly seized and admitted into evidence.

In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 19 L.Ed.2d 576, 585, 88 S.Ct. 507, 514 (1967), the United States Supreme Court noted, ". . . searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by a judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions." We are of the opinion that the seizure of these letters and photographs which were not listed on the face of the warrant and therefore seized without prior judicial approval, was proper as coming within just such a well-delineated exception; that of "plain view." The "plain view" exception was discussed by the United States Supreme Court in Coolidge v. New Hampshire 403 U.S. 443, 465, 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 582, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2037, reh. den., 404 U.S. 874, 30 L.Ed.2d 120, 92 S.Ct. 26 (1971), where that court noted:

"It is well established that under certain circumstances the police may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant. . . . An example . . . of the 'plain view' doctrine is . . . (where) the police have a warrant to search a given area for specified objects, and in the course of the search come across some other article of incriminating character." (Citations omitted.) (Emphasis ours.)

In Coolidge the United States Supreme Court also defined the circumstances which must be present for an object discovered by officers without a warrant to be admissible under the "plain view" exception. First, the officers must have prior justification for the intrusion onto the premises being searched (other than observing the object which is later contended to have been in plain view). Secondly, the incriminating evidence must be inadvertently discovered by the officers while on the premises. Id. at 466, 29 L.Ed.2d at 583, 91 S.Ct. at 2038. Accord State v. Richards, 294 N.C. 474, 489, 242 S.E.2d 844, 854 (1978); State v. Riddick, 291 N.C. 399, 230 S.E.2d 506 (1976).

In the case sub judice the officers were justifiably on the premises by virtue of the search warrant issued by a disinterested judicial authority, authorizing them to search the mobile home for heroin. While searching for heroin in the dresser located in the master bedroom, Deputy...