Iffy Warrant Affidavits: Appeal 'Em All, Let Trial Courts Sort 'Em Out

STATE v. MCKINNEY, Supreme Court of NC No. 622PA05, http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/sc/opinions/2006/622-05-1.htm , on discretionary review from the Court of Appeals of NC, opinion by Justice Martin, filed 15 Dec 2006.

LONG STORY SHORT: The trial court did not resolve the factual issue of whether the search warrant affidavit established probable cause independently of the fruits of an illegal warrantless search, leaving the appellate courts with insufficient facts to decide the case, necessitating remand to the trial court for further factfinding. Binding in NC.

FACTS: Based on a tip from a citizen that her roomate's friend, street name Phoenix, had killed his roommate, Sergeants Morgan of the Greensboro Police Department on 17 May 2003 interviewed Phoenix's friend about the matter. Phoenix's friend described Phoenix's house to them, and Sergeant Morgan related the description to Sergeant Allen, who located the house answering that description. Sergeant Morgan also told Sergeant Allen that Phoenix was probably driving around in the roommate's blue Jeep Cherokee, and Sergeant Allen did not see that vehicle at the house. Sergeant Allen learned that the roommate did not show up for work the day before, contrary to his usual habit; that Phoenix had told his friend that the roommate "wouldn't be coming back" because he had pulled a knife on Phoenix, who "didn't know what else to do"; and that the roommate's sister and brother, who arrived at the house while Sergeant Allen was there, had not heard from him in days. No one present had a house key and the house was locked.

While Sergeant Allen was briefly absent from the house, the roommate's brother removed an air conditioner from a window and crawled inside. When Sergeant Allen returned and Sergeant Morgan arrived, the roommate's brother invited them inside. Believing that a victim might be inside the house and in need of assistance, and that evidence of an assault might be inside, the sergeants went in. Upon seeing what looked like blood spatter in the front bedroom, the sergeants left the house to get a search warrant while other officers secured it. They returned with a warrant and a detective and crime scene specialists. In a front bedroom was a city-issued trash can, on the lid of which were a towel and two candles. Underneath the towel was a computer-generated note reading: "Glenn Devon McKinney [Phoenix's real name] did this." Inside was the roommate's dead body.

PROCEDURE: The State of North Carolina indicted Defendant for first-degree murder in Guilford County Superior Court but did not seek the death penalty. Before trial, Defendant moved to suppress all evidence found in the house on grounds that the initial entry was warrantless and not subject to any exception to the warrant requirement, and that the warrant depended on the blood spatter seen during the initial entry, rendering both searches unreasonable and illegal under the Fourth Amendment. The State responded that exigent circumstances did not allow time to get a search warrant, and also that Defendant did not have standing to move for suppression. SUPPRESSION DENIED without specifying the factual or legal basis for the decision. A jury convicted Defendant as charged and the trial court sentenced him to mandatory life without parole.

Defendant appealed as of right to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina, arguing that the initial entry was illegal and that all that followed was fruit of the poisonous tree. The Court of Appeals agreed. CONVICTION REVERSED without dissent. The Supreme Court of North Carolina allowed the State's petition for discretionary review and considered two issues: whether the initial entry was allowed under any exception to the warrant requirement, and if the initial search was illegal, whether independent sources had provided enough evidence to make probable cause for a magistrate to issue a search warrant.

DECISION: As to the first issue, warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable, and the State must show the existence of some recognized exception to the warrant requirement. Here, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the totality of the circumstances did not establish exigent circumstances, and the officers should not have entered without a search warrant. AFFIRMED IN PART.

As to the second issue, Defendant's standing to move for suppression depended on contested facts before the trial court, but the trial court's order denying suppression did not resolve that factual dispute. Neither did the order state the factual or legal basis for denying suppression. While it appeared to the Supreme Court that enough other facts were present to establish probable cause independent of the evidence from the illegal search, even the Supreme Court would not usurp the trial court's prerogative and duty (and better ability) to decide initially whether, if the warrant had not referred to the evidence from the illegal search, probable cause still existed. JUDGMENT VACATED; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED to the trial court for further inquiry into the basis for the search warrant.

EDITORIAL: Never time to do things right; always time to do things over; but this doesn't have to be done over. As y'all know, I am very big on pushing decisions down the chain of command, and very small on appellate court micromanagement of trial courts. I guess I'm supposed to be glad that the NC Supremes handed it back to the Superior Court, but just this once, I'm not. Since probable cause is no more than slightly educated common sense, it's clear from the facts that the opinion found in the record that the warrant should have issued. Though the initial FOAF tip (friend of a friend) was pretty thin, the police then asked around like any ordinary citizen could have done, and found out the victim's vehicle was gone and nobody had seen him lately and he hadn't shown up for work. It looks like no officer was around to stop the victim's brother from breaking and entering, and he would have found the blood spatter in about five seconds without any help from the government. The Supreme Court should have saved the taxpayers and the victim's family the unnecessary pain of relitigating this horror. If the AG wants me to cosign a motion for rehearing, I'll sure see what I can do.

Unless something was left out of the opinion, I don't see why exigent circumstances didn't justify the officers in at least looking around for a victim or perpetrator. As soon as they saw the blood, they skedaddled, as they should have. In hindsight, the IAD should have been to order the brother out of the house to keep him from contaminating the scene, and look for plain view evidence justifying exigent circumstances or a warrant. That's the way to keep evidence safe, but not necessarily victims, and I'd rather save a victim who can be saved than have to dig out the dang law book every time I respond to a possible homicide scene.