State v. Cobb

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
2022-NCSC-57
No. 28A21
Filed 6 May 2022
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
DESHANDRA VACHELLE COBB
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of
the Court of Appeals, 275 N.C. App. 740, 853 S.E.2d 803 (2020), vacating an order
entered on 3 April 2019 by Judge Claire V. Hill in Superior Court, Harnett County,
and remanding the case for further proceedings. Heard in the Supreme Court on 15
February 2022.
Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Kindelle McCullen, Assistant Attorney
General, for the State-appellant.
Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, by Wyatt Orsbon, Assistant Appellate
Defender, for defendant-appellee.
BERGER, Justice.
¶1 Defendant pleaded guilty to impaired driving after the trial court denied her
motion to suppress evidence obtained at a Harnett County checking station. The
Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to
suppress, and the State appeals based upon a dissent. For the reasons stated below,
we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the order of the trial
STATE V. COBB
2022-NCSC-57
Opinion of the Court
court.
I. Factual Background
¶2 At approximately 12:15 a.m. on August 28, 2016, defendant was driving her
vehicle in Harnett County when she approached a checking station operated by the
North Carolina State Highway Patrol. When defendant rolled down her window,
Trooper BJ Holder detected a strong odor of alcohol emanating from the vehicle.
Trooper Holder asked defendant if she had been drinking, and defendant responded
that she had two shots of Grey Goose vodka at a bar. Trooper Holder asked defendant
to step out of the vehicle.
¶3 Upon exiting, defendant was unsteady on her feet and Trooper Holder
requested that defendant perform standard field sobriety tests, including a horizontal
gaze nystagmus (HGN) test. Six of six clues of impairment were present when the
HGN test was administered. A breath sample provided by defendant at the Harnett
County Detention Center registered a blood alcohol level of 0.11 on the Intox EC/IR
II device. Defendant was charged with one count of driving while impaired and one
count of reckless driving.1
¶4 A Checking Station Authorization form (HP-14 form) was completed for the
checking station by Sergeant John Bobbitt of the NCSHP. The form indicated that
the primary purpose of the checking station was “Chapter 20 enforcement” which
1 The State later dismissed the charge of reckless driving.
STATE V. COBB
2022-NCSC-57
Opinion of the Court
included “at a minimum, checking each driver stopped for a valid driver’s license and
evidence of impairment.” Further, pursuant to the information set forth on the HP-
14 form, the checking station was to operate between the hours of 12:15 a.m. and 2:00
a.m. on August 28, 2016, and Sergeant Bobbitt was noted as the supervising member
in charge.
¶5 On February 6, 2019, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence of her blood
alcohol level contending that the checking station was unconstitutional and violated
N.C.G.S. § 20-16.3A.2 Thus, defendant argued, “any evidence obtained [wa]s in
violation of [d]efendant’s rights and must be suppressed and any charges arising
therefrom must be dismissed.”
¶6 From the testimony presented at the hearing on the motion to suppress, the
trial court found as fact that Sergeant Bobbitt had been employed with the NCSHP
for approximately twenty-five years. In addition, the trial court found that Sergeant
Bobbitt completed and signed the HP-14 form, and the form “complied with the
statutory and other regulatory requirements regarding checking stations.” The
findings of fact detailed that the checking station was located “a short distance to
[NC] Highway 87 and three county lines making it a major thoroughfare into and out
2 Defendant did not argue on appeal that the checking station violated N.C.G.S. § 20-
16.3A. Defendant has, therefore, abandoned the argument. See N.C. R. App. P. 28(a) (“Issues
not presented and discussed in a party’s brief are deemed abandoned.”).
STATE V. COBB
2022-NCSC-57
Opinion of the Court
of the county.” “The public concern addressed[,]” the trial court went on to find, “was
the public safety in confirming motorists were in compliance and not violating any
Chapter 20 Motor Vehicle Violation.”
¶7 Additionally, the trial court included findings of fact related to the execution
of the checking station by the NCSHP. Specifically, the trial court found that “[t]he
seizure was short in time for most drivers . . . since most drivers were stopped for less
than one minute” if they “had their driver’s license and registration.” Further, the
trial court’s findings indicate that “[a]t least two [NCSHP] vehicles with blue lights
were on at all times[,]” and “[t]he participating members were wearing their [NCSHP]
uniforms with reflective vests and utility flashlights.” This allowed for the checking
station to be “observed from any direction of approach from one-tenth up to one-half
a mile [away,]” giving drivers “adequate time to observe the checking station and
come to a stop.” The trial court also found that although “[t]raffic did back up some”
because “every vehicle that approached this checking station was checked[,]” the
negative effect on the flow of traffic was “not extreme.”
¶8 Based on these findings of fact, the trial court then concluded as a matter of
law that:
1. The plan was reasonable and the checking station
did not violate the Defendant’s U.S. or N.C.
constitutional rights.
2. The checking station as it was operated advanced
the public concern and was reasonable.
STATE V. COBB
2022-NCSC-57
Opinion of the Court
3. Enforcement of the motor vehicle laws is a
legitimate public purpose and promotes public
safety.
4. The short amount of time that the checking station
potentially interfered with an individual’s liberty
was not significant.
Accordingly, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress.
¶9 Following the denial of the motion to suppress, defendant pleaded guilty to the
charge of driving while impaired, expressly reserving her right to appeal the denial
of the motion to suppress. Defendant’s sentence of sixty days imprisonment was
suspended, and she was placed on unsupervised probation. Defendant timely
appealed.
¶ 10 In a split decision, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order denying
defendant’s motion to suppress and remanded the case for further proceedings. State
v. Cobb, 275 N.C. App. 740, 752, 853 S.E.2d 803, 811 (2020). The majority reasoned
that because the trial court “did not adequately weigh the three Brown factors”
required in such an analysis, the trial court “could not assess whether the public
interest in this [checking station] outweighed its infringement on [d]efendant’s
Fourth Amendment privacy interests.” Id. at 749, 853 S.E.2d at 809. The Court of
Appeals determined, and defendant now argues, that the trial court erred in
concluding that the checking station was reasonable without adequately engaging in
the analysis required by the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Texas, 443
STATE V. COBB
2022-NCSC-57
Opinion of the Court
U.S. 47, 50, 99 S. Ct. 2637, 2640, 61 L. Ed. 2d 357, 361 (1979).
¶ 11 Based on a dissenting opinion, the State timely appealed to this Court, arguing
that the majority below erred in concluding that the trial court’s order denying
defendant’s motion to suppress was insufficient to evaluate the constitutionality of
the checking station.
II. Standard of Review
¶ 12 “[A] trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress is afforded great deference upon
appellate review as it has the duty to hear testimony and weigh the evidence.” State
v. McClendon, 130 N.C. App. 368, 377, 502 S.E.2d 902, 908 (1998), aff’d, 350 N.C.
630, 517 S.E.2d 128 (1999); see also State v. Smith, 278 N.C. 36, 41, 178 S.E.2d 597,
601 (1971). An appellate court’s review of a trial court’s denial of 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).
Findings of fact not challenged on appeal are “deemed to be supported by competent
evidence and are binding on appeal.” State v. Biber, 365 N.C. 162, 168, 712 S.E.2d
874, 878 (2011). Conclusions of law, however, are reviewed de novo and are subject
to full review by this Court. Id.¶ 13 Defendant did not challenge any of the trial court’s findings of fact as
STATE V. COBB
2022-NCSC-57
Opinion of the Court
unsupported by the evidence in the record. Thus, the trial court’s findings of fact are
binding on appeal.
III. Analysis
¶ 14 The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure . . .
against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. Because law
enforcement officers effectuate a seizure when they stop a vehicle at a checking
station, such stops must conform to Fourth Amendment requirements. City of
Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 40, 121 S. Ct. 447, 453, 148 L. Ed. 2d 333, 342
(2000); see also United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 556, 96 S. Ct. 3074,
3082, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1116, 1127 (1976) (“[C]heck[ing station] stops are ‘seizures’ within
the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.”). The ultimate question in challenges to the
validity of a checking station is “whether such seizures are ‘reasonable’ under the
Fourth Amendment.” Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 450, 110
S. Ct. 2481, 2485, 110 L. Ed. 2d 412, 420 (1990).
¶ 15 As an initial matter, the Supreme Court has instructed that reviewing courts
must consider the primary programmatic purpose of a challenged checking station.
Edmond, 531 U.S. at 40–42, 121 S. Ct. at 453–54, 148 L. Ed. 2d at 342–44. Checking
stations established primarily to “uncover evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing”
run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. Edmond, 531 U.S. at 42, 121 S. Ct. at 454, 148
L. Ed. 2d at 343. However, checking stations “designed primarily to serve purposes
STATE V. COBB
2022-NCSC-57
Opinion of the Court
closely related to . . . the necessity of ensuring roadway safety” have been held to
serve a legitimate primary purpose. Id. at 41, 121 S. Ct. at 454, 148 L. Ed. 2d at 333;
see also Sitz, 496 U.S. at 451, 110 S. Ct. at 2485, 110 L. Ed. 2d 412. In addition, the
Supreme Court has upheld checking stations designed to address problems related to
policing the border and to assist law enforcement officers in obtaining information to
apprehend “other individuals” involved in criminal activity. See Martinez-Fuerte, 428
U.S. at 545, 96 S. Ct. at 3077, 49 L. Ed. 2d at 1116; Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419,
427, 124 S. Ct. 885, 891, 157 L. Ed. 2d 843, 852 (2004).
¶ 16 Here, the primary programmatic purpose of the checking station was
uncontested. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, defense counsel
acknowledged the primary purpose of the checking station was “to check licenses. We
don’t disagree . . . they got to the primary purpose[.]” Defendant’s concession is
reflected in the trial court’s unchallenged finding that “[t]here was no argument by
the defendant that the purpose of the checking station was . . . not a permitted
primary [programmatic] purpose.” The trial court’s finding is therefore binding on
appeal, and we must next determine the reasonableness of the checking station under
the Fourth Amendment. Edmond, 531 U.S. at 47, 121 S. Ct. at 457, 148 L. Ed. 2d at
347.
¶ 17 This Court has held that “check[ing stations] are constitutional if vehicles are
stopped according to a neutral, articulable standard (e.g., every vehicle) and if the
STATE V. COBB
2022-NCSC-57
Opinion of the Court
government interest in conducting the check[ing station] outweighs the degree of the
intrusion.” State v. Foreman, 351 N.C. 627, 631, 527 S.E.2d 921, 924 (2000). “The
reasonableness of seizures that are less intrusive than a traditional arrest depends
on a balance between the public interest and the individual’s right to personal
security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.” Brown, 443 U.S. at 50, 99
S. Ct. at 2640, 61 L. Ed. 2d at 361 (cleaned up). “[W]e must judge [the] reasonableness
[of a checking station], hence, its constitutionality, on the basis of individual
circumstances.” State v. Mitchell, 358 N.C. 63, 66, 592 S.E.2d 543, 545 (2004) (first
and second alterations in original) (quoting Lidster, 540 U.S. at 426, 124 S. Ct. at 890,
157 L. Ed. 2d at 852 (2004)).
¶ 18 In determining whether a seizure that results from a checking station survives
constitutional scrutiny, we “weigh[ ] . . . the gravity of the public concerns served by
the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the
severity of the interference with individual liberty.” Brown, 443 U.S. at 50–51, 99 S.
Ct. at 2640, 61 L. Ed. 2d at 362. Upon a balancing of these factors, a checking station
is deemed reasonable, and therefore constitutional, if the factors weigh in favor of the
public interest. Lidster, 540 U.S. at 427, 124 S. Ct. at 890, 157 L. Ed. 2d at 852.
¶ 19 Our nation’s highest court has held that driver’s license checking stations
typically satisfy the first Brown prong because “the public concerns served by the
seizure” outweigh the Fourth Amendment interest of individuals. Id. (quoting
STATE V. COBB
2022-NCSC-57
Opinion of the Court
Brown, 443 U.S. at 50–51, 99 S. Ct. at 2640, 61 L. Ed. 2d at 362); see also State v.
Rose, 170 N.C. App. 284, 294, 612 S.E.2d 336, 342, disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 641,
617 S.E.2d 656 (2005) (holding that license and registration checking stations
advance an “important purpose). The public interest in ensuring compliance with
motor vehicle laws is a well-established and important public concern. See Rose, 170
N.C. App. at 294, 612 S.E.2d at 342. “States have a vital interest in ensuring that
only those qualified to [drive] are permitted to operate motor vehicles . . . .” Delaware
v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 658, 99 S. Ct. 1391, 1398, 59 L. Ed. 2d 660, 670 (1979).
Moreover, the Supreme Court has recognized that “[n]o one can seriously dispute the
magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States’ interest in eradicating it. . .
. For decades, this Court has repeatedly lamented the tragedy [of deaths resulting
from impaired drivers].” Sitz, 496 U.S. at 451, 110 S. Ct. at 2485–86, 110 L. Ed. 2d
at 420–21 (cleaned up).
¶ 20 Consistent with the requirement of Brown, the trial court found that “[t]he
public concern addressed with this particular checking station was the public safety
in confirming motorists were in compliance and not violating any Chapter 20”
provision and that this purpose was clearly set forth in establishing the checking
station. The trial court determined the purpose of ensuring each driver had a valid
driver’s license and was not driving while impaired “operated [to] advance[ ] the
public concern and was reasonable.”
STATE V. COBB
2022-NCSC-57
Opinion of the Court
¶ 21 Under the second prong of the Brown analysis, the trial court examined “the
degree to which the seizure advance[d] the public interest.” Brown, 443 U.S. at 51,
99 S. Ct. at 2640, 61 L. Ed. 2d at 362. A consideration at this step is whether “[t]he
police appropriately tailored their check[ing station] stops” to fit the primary purpose.
Lidster, 540 U.S. at 427, 124 S. Ct. at 891, 157 L. Ed. 2d at 852. Alongside other
factors, the use of time and location limitations in establishing and operating the
checking station provides evidence that the vehicle stop was appropriately tailored.
See id. (finding that the police’s selection of a specific time and location was
sufficiently tailored as “[t]he stops took place about one week after [a] hit-and-run
accident, on the same highway near the location of the accident, and at about the
same time of night”).
¶ 22 Based on the evidence presented, the trial court found that the checking station
was planned and operated pursuant to a HP-14 form completed by Sergeant Bobbitt.
The checking station was established a short distance from NC Highway 87, on a
heavily travelled thoroughfare in an area where three county lines converge.
Additionally, the trial court found the checking station was in effect during a
previously agreed upon timeframe and date, between 12:15 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. on
August 28, 2016, and extended no longer than that time. These findings demonstrate
that the checking station was conducted in a location where there was increased
motor vehicle traffic and during a timeframe conducive to apprehending impaired
STATE V. COBB
2022-NCSC-57
Opinion of the Court
drivers.
¶ 23 With respect to the final factor of the Brown analysis, the severity of the
interference with individual liberty, the focus shifts to how the checking station was
conducted. Brown, 443 U.S. at 51, 99 S. Ct. at 2640, 61 L. Ed. 2d at 362. Specifically,
the third factor requires a checking station to “be carried out pursuant to a plan
embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers.” Id. This
ensures that officers are not able to exercise “unfettered discretion” that results in
the invasion of motorists’ liberties. Id.¶ 24 The Supreme Court has designated a number of nonexclusive factors as
relevant considerations, including the checking station’s interference with regular
traffic, whether notice of the checking station was given to approaching drivers, and
whether there was a supervising official overseeing the checking station. See
Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 559, 96 S. Ct. at 3083–84, 49 L. Ed. 2d at 1129.
¶ 25 Here, as discussed above, the trial court’s unchallenged findings of fact show
that the checking station was conducted pursuant to the plan established and
documented by Sergeant Bobbitt. The plan included explicit limitations regarding
the location and timeframe of the checking station. Further, the trial court found
that all vehicles were stopped pursuant to the established plan. While the trial court
found that “[t]raffic did back up some” because all vehicles were stopped, the backup
was “not extreme.”
STATE V. COBB
2022-NCSC-57
Opinion of the Court
¶ 26 Moreover, the trial court found that drivers were put on notice of the checking
station as “[a]t least two [NCSHP] vehicles with blue lights were on at all times”
during the checking station. Additionally, the trial court found that “participating
members were wearing their [NCSHP] uniforms with reflective vests and utility
flashlights.” Finally, based on evidence showing that the checking station was
approved and executed by Sergeant Bobbitt, the trial court made various findings
indicating that the checking station was operated under a supervising officer from
start to finish.
¶ 27 In focusing on the specific conduct of the officers during the vehicle stops, the
trial court found that officer conduct was sufficiently limited, stating:
19. The seizure was short in time for most drivers . . .
since most drivers were stopped for less than one minute.
....
28. If drivers had their driver’s license and registration
the stop lasted one minute or less.
These findings indicate that the checking station was not operated with “unfettered
discretion” but rather with specific restraints on time, location, and officer conduct.
It follows that the trial court properly concluded that the “short amount of time that
the checking station potentially interfered with an individual’s liberty was not
significant.” Thus, the checking station was appropriately tailored to address the
stated purpose.
STATE V. COBB
2022-NCSC-57
Opinion of the Court
¶ 28 In balancing the factors set forth in Brown, the trial court concluded that the
public interest served by the checking station outweighed the intrusion on
defendant’s liberty interests. The unchallenged findings of fact support this
conclusion, and the checking station was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
IV. Conclusion
¶ 29 Based on our review of the trial court’s unchallenged findings of fact, the public
interest in conducting the checking station outweighed any intrusion on defendant’s
liberty interests, and the checking station was, therefore, reasonable under the
Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and
reinstate the order of the trial court denying defendant’s motion to suppress.
REVERSED.