Appeals Court rules deputy made Fourth Amendment ‘seizure’ by blocking driver’s exit | Eastern North Carolina Now | A unanimous N.C. Court of Appeals panel ruled that a law enforcement officer "seized" a driver by parking behind that driver with blue lights flashing and blocking the driver's exit.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
    Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the Carolina Journal. The author of this post is CJ Staff.

    An Orange County sheriff's deputy effectively "seized" a driver in 2019 when she pulled behind a parked car, activated her blue lights, and blocked the driver's exit. That "seizure" means the driver can move to have evidence of impaired driving thrown out of court.

    That's the conclusion of a unanimous N.C. Court of Appeals opinion released Tuesday. The case is called State v. Eagle.

    "The issue in this case is whether a driver is 'seized' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when a police officer in a marked police cruiser drives slowly past a parked vehicle at night, backs up, pulls in behind the vehicle while activating the patrol car's blue lights, blocks the driver's exit, and then remains in the police cruiser while checking Defendant's license plate," wrote Judge Darren Jackson.

    "Because we conclude that no reasonable person would believe she was free to drive off under such circumstances, we hold that Defendant was seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as Article I, § 20 of the North Carolina Constitution at the point in time when Deputy Belk pulled in behind Defendant while activating the patrol car's blue lights and blocked her exit."

    The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects people against "unreasonable searches and seizures." Article I, § 20 of the N.C. Constitution discusses general warrants "whereby any officer or other person may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of the act committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence." The state constitution labels general warrants "dangerous to liberty" and says they "shall not be granted."

    In November 2019, about 3 a.m., a deputy identified as "R. Belk" noticed a white sedan pull into the driveway of the closed Maple View Agriculture Center in Orange County. After waiting to see whether the car would turn around, Belk backed up her cruiser, activated her blue lights, and parked about 10 feet behind the car.

    Belk "had observed no criminal violations prior to turning her blue lights on and pulling in behind Defendant's vehicle, thereby conceding the absence of reasonable suspicion," Jackson wrote.

    After checking the car's license plate, Belk approached the vehicle. She noticed a "strong odor of alcohol" in the car and observed that driver Jessica Eagle had "red, glassy eyes and slurred speech." Belk collected identification cards from Eagle and a passenger and returned to the cruiser.

    During a later hearing, a trial judge determined that Eagle had not been "seized at any point up until Deputy Belk took the identification cards to the patrol vehicle," Jackson wrote.

    Eagle faced charges for impaired driving, and a trial court rejected her motion to have evidence from the encounter with Belk suppressed.

    "Ultimately, we agree with Defendant that the trial court erred in concluding that the encounter between herself and Deputy Belk was not a seizure under the Fourth Amendment at the point in time when Deputy Belk pulled in behind Defendant's vehicle while activating her blue lights and blocked Defendant's exit," Jackson wrote.

    "The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects 'the right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures,'" he wrote. "Article I, § 20 of the North Carolina Constitution likewise 'protect[s] against unreasonable searches and seizures.'"

    Jackson cites a 2006 state court precedent: "Fourth Amendment rights are enforced primarily through 'the exclusionary rule,' which provides that evidence derived from an unconstitutional search or seizure is generally inadmissible in a criminal prosecution of the individual subjected to the constitutional violation."

    Appellate judges rejected the state's arguments that the driver had been free to leave the scene at any time before Belk approached the car. Trying to drive a car in reverse past a parked sheriff's cruiser with flashing blue lights could have led to even worse consequences.

    "Defendant made the only safe and reasonable choice available by remaining in her car at the scene," Jackson wrote. "The State's argument is not only illogical, but it is also potentially dangerous."

    "We are not expressing the view that Deputy Belk did anything wrong, and it may be true that she did not believe this was a stop," the opinion added. "However, when analyzed from the view of a reasonable person in Defendant's position, even at this early point in the encounter, any reasonable person would have realized that they were the target of police suspicion and were likewise not free to drive off. To hold otherwise could instigate the escalation of encounters between the police and drivers in North Carolina and lead to far worse results for those involved."

    The trial judge should have allowed the driver's motion to suppress evidence collected during the "seizure," Jackson concluded.

    "[N]o reasonable person in Defendant's position would have felt free to ignore Deputy Belk's show of authority," he wrote. "Accordingly, we hold that Defendant was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, § 20 of the North Carolina Constitution at the point that Deputy Belk pulled in behind Defendant's car while activating her blue lights and blocked Defendant's available exit. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress."

    Judges Hunter Murphy and Jeff Carpenter joined Jackson's opinion.
Go Back

Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )

NC Conference of United Methodists may lose 1/3 of churches to new denomination Carolina Journal, Statewide, Editorials, Government, Op-Ed & Politics, State and Federal Budd jumps ahead of Beasley by 6% in new poll of U.S. Senate race


Latest State and Federal

In a dramatic ruling issued just days before midterm elections, the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s ruling and ordered the transfer of millions of dollars to pay for a school improvement plan designed to ensure North Carolina’s school children receive a sound basic education
Witnesses say StackedPAC gave items in exchange for voting. The group is not legally registered to operate in North Carolina.
Please find attached the Voter History Statistical and Vote Totals by Precinct for November 8th, 2022.
The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services released an updated North Carolina Dental Opioid Action Plan to provide clear steps and solutions for dentists and their staff, patients, families and communities to address the opioid epidemic.
Groups linked to North Carolina's travel and tourism industry are jumping into an occupancy tax case involving Currituck County.
N.C. Attorney General Josh Stein says a challenged state election law "threatens to chill speech at the heart of our democratic process." Stein wants federal courts to declare the law unconstitutional.
Sheetz offering lower prices on unleaded 88 gas until November 28 as a benefit to those in need
N.C. State Treasurer Dale Folwell discussed issues surrounding several towns in the state Tuesday during his monthly “Ask Me Anything” virtual press conference.


Back to Top