A Movable Traffic Stop: Relocating the Search and Seizure in State v. Jackson

In State v. Jackson, No. COA23-637 (Oct. 1, 2024), the Court of Appeals considered whether an officer had reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant for trespassing. Mitchell County Sheriff’s deputies responded to a report that a suspicious vehicle had driven up an unpaved, privately-owned logging trail. “Lieutenant Beam, in his four-wheel-drive truck, drove up to the end of the trail, where he found Defendant, a female companion (“Passenger”), and Defendant’s Volkswagen Bug (the “Bug”) covered in mud and dirt.” Jackson, Slip Op. p. 2. The defendant eventually consented to a search of the car, during which officers found methamphetamine. The issue was whether the defendant was unlawfully seized when he gave consent. This post considers the opinion in Jackson. Searches and Seizures The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Searches conducted by government officials without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. State v. Terrell, 372 N.C. 657, 665 (2019). Under the automobile exception, law enforcement may search a vehicle without a warrant based on probable cause. State v. Julius, 385 N.C. 331, 339 (2023). Another exception exists when a suspect provides police with consent to search. State v. Stone, 362 N.C. 50, 53 (2007). Evidence obtained by consent is admissible if it is determined that the consent was both voluntary and not an exploitation of any prior illegality. 4 Wayne R. Lafave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 8.2(d) [...]