State v. St. George ( 2014 )

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute
controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
NO. COA14-180
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 5 August 2014
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Lenoir County
Nos. 13 CRS 50039
WARREN STEVEN ST. GEORGE 13 CRS 700035
Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 31 July 2013 by
Judge Charles H. Henry in Lenoir County Superior Court. Heard
in the Court of Appeals 21 July 2014.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Associate Attorney General
Gayle L. Kemp, for the State.
Bryan Gates for defendant-appellant.
HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge.
Defendant appeals from judgments entered after he was
convicted for driving while impaired, driving while license
revoked, and driving left of center. Defendant argues the trial
court erred in denying his motion to suppress. After careful
review, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying
defendant’s motion to suppress.
-2-
On 4 January 2013 at approximately 9:55 p.m., Trooper
Jackie Rogers stopped defendant for driving left of center on
Tick Bite Road in Grifton. When the trooper asked defendant for
his license, defendant stated that he did not have a license.
The trooper observed that defendant had red, glassy eyes, a
strong odor of alcohol coming from his person, and slurred
speech. The trooper formed the opinion “that the defendant had
consumed a sufficient quantity of an impairing substance to
appreciably impair his mental and physical faculties.”
Defendant was arrested and charged with driving while impaired,
driving while license revoked, and driving left of center.
Defendant pled guilty to driving while impaired in district
court, and the State dismissed the other two charges. Defendant
was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Defendant filed written
notice of appeal to superior court on 8 April 2013.
Prior to trial in superior court, defendant filed a motion
to suppress evidence seized during the traffic stop. The trial
court conducted a hearing on the motion prior to trial on 30
July 2013 and denied defendant’s motion. On 31 July 2013, a
jury found defendant guilty of driving left of center and
driving while impaired. Defendant entered a no contest plea to
driving while license revoked. The trial court sentenced
-3-
defendant to 18 months for driving while impaired and to 120
days for driving while license revoked and driving left of
center. Defendant filed timely written notice of appeal on 6
August 2013.
Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his
motion to suppress because the trooper did not have reasonable
suspicion to stop his vehicle. This Court’s review of an order
denying a motion to suppress is “strictly limited to determining
whether the trial judge’s underlying findings of fact are
supported by competent evidence, in which event they are
conclusively binding on appeal, and whether those factual
findings in turn support the judge’s ultimate 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, however, are
fully reviewable on appeal.” State v. Hughes, 353 N.C. 200,
208, 539 S.E.2d 625, 631 (2000).
Under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer
is permitted to conduct a brief
investigatory stop of a vehicle and detain
its occupants without a warrant[.] However,
in order to conduct a warrantless,
investigatory stop, an officer must have
reasonable and articulable suspicion of
criminal activity. The reasonable suspicion
must arise from the officer’s knowledge
prior to the time of the stop.
-4-
State v. Fields, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 723 S.E.2d 777, 779
(2012) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Citing State v. Otto, 366 N.C. 134, 138, 726 S.E.2d 824,
828 (2012), defendant contends that “[i]n order for weaving to
constitute reasonable suspicion for a vehicle stop, it must be
‘constant and continual.’” Defendant also cites Fields, where
this Court found reasonable suspicion based on weaving “like a
ball bouncing in a small room” combined with other cars having
to take evasive measures to avoid an accident. Fields, ___ N.C.
App. at ___, 723 S.E.2d at 779. Defendant argues there was no
evidence that other cars were affected in this case, there was
no indication of the distance his car travelled while the
trooper followed, and there was no testimony of extreme weaving.
We are not persuaded.
In this case, the trial court made the following relevant
findings of fact:
1. Master trooper Jackie Rogers, a North
Carolina highway patrolman of over thirteen
years of experience, was on routine patrol
in northeastern Lenoir County at
approximately 9:55 p.m. on Friday, January
4, 2013. Rogers was stopped at a stop sign
at the intersection of Highland Avenue and
Contentea Drive near Grifton when he first
observed the defendant’s motor vehicle.
2. Trooper Rogers observed a Lincoln back
out from a driveway located west of his
-5-
location on Contentea Drive. This driveway
was adjacent to a residence that had a
reputation as being a “liquor house” from
which one could buy alcohol.
3. The Lincoln proceeded east on Contentea
Drive away from Trooper Rogers’ location.
Contentea Drive[,] at that location[,] is a
two lane rural highway divided by a double
yellow line that passes several residences.
4. The Lincoln[,] as it was being driven
east[,] drifted one to two feet across the
center line into the westbound lane at an
area west of a railroad crossing. After the
motor vehicle returned to the east bound
lane, it again crossed the center line as
the motor vehicle entered a curve in the
road to the left. The vehicle crossed the
center line a third time when it entered a
long curve to the right. At that location
the motor vehicle straddled the center lines
so that half of the vehicle was in the west
bound lane. Because the curve obstructed
the view of the oncoming lane, the trooper
decided to activate his blue lights and pull
the Lincoln over.
These findings are unchallenged by defendant and “they are
deemed to be supported by competent evidence and are binding on
appeal.” State v. Roberson, 163 N.C. App. 129, 132, 592 S.E.2d
733, 735–36, disc. review denied, 358 N.C. 240, 594 S.E.2d 199(2004). The evidence indicates that defendant crossed into the
opposite lane of travel three times, and that his car was
halfway in the opposite lane of travel in an area where a curve
obstructed the view of oncoming traffic. Similarly, in both
-6-
Otto and Fields, the defendants weaved within their own lane of
travel and crossed the center line. Otto, 366 N.C. at 135, 726
S.E.2d at 826; Fields, ___, N.C. App. at ___, 723 S.E.2d at 779.
Accordingly, we conclude the trooper had reasonable suspicion to
stop defendant’s vehicle, and the trial court did not err in
denying defendant’s motion to suppress. Defendant’s argument is
overruled.
No error.
Judges BRYANT and STROUD concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).