State v. Peters, COA24-475, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Apr. 16, 2025)

In this McDowell County case, defendant appealed after pleading guilty to possession of methamphetamine, arguing error in denying her motion to suppress the evidence found during a warrantless search. The Court of Appeals agreed, vacating and remanding for consideration of whether defendant clearly and unequivocally consented to the search of her wallet.

In July of 2022, defendant and a man were living in a camp near Pisgah National Forest when they were approached by Wildlife Resource Commission officers. The officers asked for proof that defendant owned the vehicle in the camp, and she provided proof of title. The officers then asked if they could check out the car, to which the man residing with defendant said yes; this man had been the driver of the vehicle as defendant did not have a valid license. Due to circumstances unknown, defendant’s wallet ended up on the roof of the vehicle and the officers searched her wallet while looking through the vehicle, finding a bag of methamphetamine. Nothing legally significant was found inside the vehicle, and defendant came to trial on a charge of possession based on the methamphetamine found in her wallet. At trial, defendant moved to suppress, arguing that the search of her wallet was unconstitutional, but the trial court denied the motion. Defendant pleaded guilty, reserving her right to appeal the issue.

The Court of Appeals first established that defendant impliedly consented to the search of her vehicle, based on her failure to object to the search when a third party gave consent, and her actions attempting to facilitate the search by cleaning an area of the vehicle. However, the court noted the distinction between consent to search the inside of the vehicle and consent to search defendant’s wallet, as “[t]he wallet was neither inside nor otherwise attached to the vehicle.” Slip Op. at 6. Because the trial court did not make a determination as to whether defendant consented to the search of her wallet, “the trial court’s findings cannot support its order denying Defendant’s motion to suppress.” Id. at 7. The court then reasoned through the appropriate remedy, concluding that the trial court must determine based on the evidence whether the officer objectively believed that defendant placing her wallet on the roof represented “giving her clear and unequivocal consent to the officer’s search of her wallet.” Id. at 9.