The opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA17-796
Filed: 3 April 2018
Beaufort County, No. 13 CRS 52747
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
RALPH JONES, JR.
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 7 February 2017 by Judge Jeffery
B. Foster in Beaufort County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22
January 2018.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Michelle D.
Denning, for the State.
The Robinson Law Firm, P.A., by Leslie S. Robinson, for defendant-appellant.
DAVIS, Judge.
In this appeal, we consider whether (1) a police officer’s observation of a single
instance of a vehicle crossing the double yellow centerline in violation of North
Carolina’s motor vehicle laws constitutes reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic
stop; and (2) a trial court may properly consider at a suppression hearing testimony
from an officer about a vehicle stop that includes material information not contained
in the officer’s contemporaneous reports. Ralph Jones, Jr. (“Defendant”) appeals from
STATE V. JONES
Opinion of the Court
his conviction for driving while impaired. After a thorough review of the record and
applicable law, we affirm the order of the trial court denying his motion to suppress.
Factual and Procedural Background
On 8 December 2013, Trooper Matthew Myers of the North Carolina State
Highway Patrol was traveling southbound on N.C. Highway 32 in Beaufort County.
At approximately 7:00 p.m., he was notified by dispatch that a caller had reported
that a black Chevrolet truck was traveling northbound on Highway 32 at “a
careless/reckless high speed . . . .”
As Trooper Myers approached a curve in the road, he observed two vehicles
less than a quarter of a mile ahead of his patrol car traveling in the northbound lane.
A double yellow line divided the lanes of travel. One of the two vehicles was a black
Chevrolet truck, and Trooper Myers observed that the truck was “slightly left of
center in a curve.” He was able to “tell the [head]lights were in [his] traveling lane
instead of the northbound lane . . . .”
After the truck passed Trooper Myers’ patrol vehicle, it “pulled to the right
shoulder of the road . . . .” He activated his blue lights, made a U-turn, and pulled
behind the truck. He observed Defendant sitting in the driver’s seat as he approached
the vehicle. Based on his conversation with Defendant, Trooper Myers believed he
was impaired.
-2-
STATE V. JONES
Opinion of the Court
Defendant was arrested and charged with driving while impaired. That same
evening, Trooper Myers made handwritten notes in an Affidavit and Revocation
Report (the “Revocation Report”) and in a Driving While Impaired Report Form (the
“DWIR Form”). He later testified that for “most of [his] DWI cases” he was unable to
“put a lot of information on the DWIR form” due to space constraints and his “sloppy”
handwriting. For this reason, he would type his full observations into a Microsoft
Word document so that it would be “easier to read . . . .”
On 9 December 2013, he followed this practice by typing notes concerning the
prior evening’s traffic stop into a Microsoft Word document. These notes contained
greater detail about the incident than the Revocation Report or the DWIR form.
On 26 August 2014, Defendant filed a motion to suppress in which he sought
to exclude the evidence obtained as a result of the traffic stop based on his assertion
that the stop itself was unlawful. A suppression hearing was held before the
Honorable Wayland J. Sermons, Jr., in Beaufort County Superior Court on 15
September 2016. Trooper Myers was the only witness who testified at the hearing.
The trial court entered an order on 11 October 2016 denying the motion to
suppress. On 7 February 2017, Defendant pled guilty to driving while impaired but
expressly reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. That same
day, the trial court sentenced him to 30 days imprisonment but suspended the
-3-
STATE V. JONES
Opinion of the Court
sentence and placed him on unsupervised probation for 24 months. Defendant gave
oral notice of appeal in open court.
Analysis
On appeal, Defendant’s sole argument is that the trial court erred by denying
his motion to suppress. Specifically, he contends that (1) the trial court’s findings of
fact in its 11 October 2016 order were unsupported by competent evidence; and (2)
the trial court erred as a matter of law in concluding that Trooper Myers possessed
reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle.
“This Court’s review of an appeal from the denial of a defendant’s motion to
suppress is limited to determining whether competent evidence supports the trial
court’s findings of fact and whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of
law.” State v. Granger, 235 N.C. App. 157, 161, 761 S.E.2d 923, 926 (2014) (citation
and quotation marks omitted). It is well established that “the trial court resolves
conflicts in the evidence and weighs the credibility of evidence and witnesses.” State
v. Saldierna, __ N.C. App. __, __, 803 S.E.2d 33, 42, disc. review allowed, __ N.C. __,
805 S.E.2d 482 (2017).
Investigatory traffic stops “must be based on specific and articulable facts, as
well as the rational inferences from those facts, as viewed through the eyes of a
reasonable, cautious officer, guided by his experience and training.” State v. Watkins,
337 N.C. 437, 441, 446 S.E.2d 67, 70 (1994). Our Supreme Court has held that “[a]
-4-
STATE V. JONES
Opinion of the Court
court must consider the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture in
determining whether a reasonable suspicion exists” to justify an officer’s
investigatory traffic stop. State v. Otto, 366 N.C. 134, 138, 726 S.E.2d 824, 828 (2012)
(internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
In its 11 October 2016 order, the trial court made the following pertinent
findings of fact:
1. On December 13, 2013, Trooper Matthew Myers of the
North Carolina State Highway Patrol arrested
defendant and charged him with impaired driving.
2. On August 26, 2014, defendant filed a Motion To
Suppress Evidence that challenged whether there was
reasonable suspicion for Trooper Myers to make a
seizure of Defendant.
3. On December 13, 2013 at approximately 7:02 o’clock
pm, Trooper Myers was employed with the North
Carolina State Highway Patrol, on duty, and traveling
south on NC Highway 32 towards the city of
Washington.
4. That prior to 7:02 o’clock pm Trooper Myers overheard
a dispatch from communications concerning a black
Chevy truck travelling north on NC Highway 32
driving in a careless and reckless manner at a high
speed just past the “Meat Farm”.
5. Trooper Myers was just north of the “Meat Farm” and
continued south looking for the black Chevy Truck on
NC Highway 32.
6. As Trooper Myers was travelling south on NC Highway
32 he observed two vehicles approaching him with
some distance between the two vehicles.
-5-
STATE V. JONES
Opinion of the Court
7. That when Trooper Myers initially observed the second
vehicle said vehicle was coming out of a slight curve as
it approached him and he could see that it was slightly
left of the centerline because he could see one of its
headlights in his lane of travel.
8. The second vehicle moved back into its lane of travel
and as Trooper Myers passed the vehicle he noticed
that it was a black Chevy truck and was the vehicle
about which he had received the dispatch to be on the
lookout for.
9. After Trooper Myers passed the black Chevy truck he
observed the truck immediately pull over to the right
side of the road.
10. Trooper Myers immediately turned his vehicle around
and pulled in behind the black Chevy truck which was
pulled off on the right hand shoulder of the road to
check on the driver and activated his blue lights and
exited his patrol vehicle.
11. During the hearing on Defendant’s motion the
Defendant admitted into evidence Defendant’s Motion
exhibit #1 which was a copy of form 3907, Affidavit and
Revocation Report from this file number and
Defendant’s Motion exhibit #2 which is a copy of
Trooper Myers’ Driving While Impaired Report
(DWIR) form from this case.
12. That the Court only reviewed said Exhibits to the point
that Trooper Myers stopped his vehicle to check on the
driver and did not consider any other portions of said
Exhibits.
13. Trooper Myers on cross-examination admitted that
neither the Affidavit and Revocation Report nor the
DWIR form contained any mention that he observed
the black Chevy truck left of center.
-6-
STATE V. JONES
Opinion of the Court
14. Trooper Myers testified that he had notes on his
computer, which notes he made the day after the stop
after he had watched the video from his on board
camera of the incident, and in such notes he recorded
that he had observed the truck left of center to the
point he could observer [sic] one of the truck’s
headlights in his lane of travel.
Based on these findings of fact, the trial court then made the following relevant
conclusions of law:
2. That a seizure occurred when Trooper Myers pulled in
behind Defendant and his vehicle and activated his blue
lights.
3. Considering the totality of the circumstances, Trooper
Myers did have sufficient reasonable suspicion to make
a seizure of Defendant and his vehicle.
I. Conflicts in Evidence
Defendant’s first argument is that the trial court erred in relying upon Trooper
Myers’ testimony at the motion to suppress hearing that he actually saw Defendant’s
vehicle cross the centerline given the absence of that information in the Revocation
Report or DWIR Form. Defendant argues that the trial court’s findings are
contradicted by the Revocation Report and DWIR Form, which did not contain these
details.
During the motion to suppress hearing, Trooper Myers testified from his typed
Microsoft Word notes, which he read into the record as follows:
[TROOPER MYERS:] . . . Received the call from
-7-
STATE V. JONES
Opinion of the Court
dispatch of a . . . black Chevy truck northbound on NC 32
just past the meat farm. I was southbound, headed that
way on my way to the office when the call came out. Truck
was northbound exiting the curve when I first made
contact, could tell the truck was in the southbound lane
coming out of the curve. As it got closer, I saw it was a black
Chevy truck matching the description of BOLO that was
given out. With that, left of center and the vehicle pulling
off onto the shoulder right past me, I turned around on the
vehicle. As soon as the truck passed me, I could see the
brake lights, and it pulled over to the right shoulder of the
road.
(Emphasis added.)
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in giving weight to Trooper
Myers’ testimony at the hearing because it contradicted the information contained in
the Revocation Report and DWIR Form. In support of this argument, he cites State
v. Canty, 224 N.C. App. 514, 736 S.E.2d 532 (2012), disc. review denied, 366 N.C. 578,
739 S.E.2d 850 (2013).
In Canty, an officer conducted a traffic stop of the defendant’s vehicle based on
his belief that the vehicle had crossed the fog line separating his lane of travel from
the shoulder of the road. The State presented video surveillance from the patrol
vehicle camera, which demonstrated that “there was no traffic violation” and that
“the vehicle did not cross the fog line in the forty-five second interval before [the
officer] engaged the lights and siren.” Id. at 519-20, 736 S.E.2d at 537. We concluded
— based on the video — that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the
traffic stop. Id. at 520, 736 S.E.2d at 537.
-8-
STATE V. JONES
Opinion of the Court
Here, conversely, Trooper Myers’ testimony at the suppression hearing
supplemented rather than contradicted the information in the Revocation Report and
DWIR Form. He explained that although his contemporaneous notes in those
documents on the evening of the traffic stop were not detailed, the notes he made the
following day contained additional information — including the fact that he had
observed Defendant’s truck cross the double yellow centerline.
The trial court possessed the authority to evaluate the credibility of Trooper
Myers’ testimony as to what he observed before he pulled over Defendant’s vehicle
and the circumstances under which he made the Microsoft Word notes the following
day. Thus, the trial court properly considered Trooper Myers’ testimony at the
suppression hearing, and the findings of fact in its order were supported by competent
evidence.
II. Existence of Reasonable Suspicion
Having determined that the challenged findings were supported by competent
evidence, we turn to the question of whether the findings supported the trial court’s
conclusion of law that Trooper Myers had reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant’s
vehicle. Defendant argues that reasonable suspicion was absent given the failure of
Trooper Myers to corroborate the anonymous tip received by dispatch, which by itself
was insufficient to provide reasonable suspicion for the stop of Defendant’s vehicle.
See State v. Hughes, 353 N.C. 200, 207, 539 S.E.2d 625, 630 (2000) (anonymous tip
-9-
STATE V. JONES
Opinion of the Court
can establish reasonable suspicion only if it contains sufficient indicia of reliability
but “a tip that is somewhat lacking in reliability may still provide a basis for
reasonable suspicion if it is buttressed by sufficient police corroboration” (citations
omitted)).
We reject Defendant’s argument because it ignores the fact that Trooper Myers’
direct observations provided reasonable suspicion for the vehicle stop. Under North
Carolina law, Defendant’s act of crossing the double yellow centerline clearly
constituted a traffic violation. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-150(d) (2017) (“The driver of a
vehicle shall not drive to the left side of the centerline of a highway upon the crest of
a grade or upon a curve in the highway where such centerline has been placed upon
such highway by the Department of Transportation, and is visible.”).
This Court has made clear that an officer’s observation of such a traffic
violation is sufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop. See, e.g.,
State v. Osterhoudt, 222 N.C. App. 620, 632, 731 S.E.2d 454, 462 (2012) (“Trooper
Monroe's testimony that he initiated the stop of defendant after observing defendant
drive over the double yellow line is sufficient to establish a violation of: (1) N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 20-146(d)(3-4) . . . ; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-146(d)(1) . . . ; and N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 20-153 . . . .”); State v. Hudson, 206 N.C. App. 482, 486, 696 S.E.2d 577, 581 (officer’s
“observation of Defendant twice crossing the center and fog lines provided [officer]
with probable cause to stop Defendant’s truck”), disc. review denied, 364 N.C. 619,
- 10 -
STATE V. JONES
Opinion of the Court
705 S.E.2d 360 (2010); State v. Baublitz, 172 N.C. App. 801, 807, 616 S.E.2d 615, 620
(2005) (officer’s stop of defendant’s vehicle was justified where he saw vehicle twice
cross centerline).
Here, the State’s evidence established that Trooper Myers personally saw
Defendant cross the double yellow line dividing the lanes of travel on Highway 32.
This was sufficient to give him reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant’s vehicle.
Thus, the trial court’s conclusion of law was supported by its findings of fact.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the trial court’s order denying
Defendant’s motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.
Chief Judge McGEE and Judge TYSON concur.
- 11 -