North Carolina Appeals Court Upholds Traffic Stop Without An Offense

Audra Lindsey SmathersThe Newspaper

For the first time, police in North Carolina are allowed to turn on their lights and siren to pull over any motorist, even when they have done nothing wrong. In a ruling last month, the North Carolina Court of Appeals for the first time in the state created a “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment. It was used to convict Audra Lindsey Smathers.

On May 27, 2010, Smathers had been driving her red Corvette down Highway 280 when Transylvania Sheriff’s Deputy Brian Kreigsman pulled in behind her. She was driving at the 45 MPH speed limit, and the deputy noted nothing suspicious or illegal. Suddenly, a large dog ran in front of the Corvette. She hit the dog, which caused the car to bounce.  

The deputy turned on his blue lights to pull her over to see if she was “okay.” She eventually stopped, and when the deputy came up to the window, Smathers was crying, upset that she had hit a dog. The deputy smelled alcohol, so he had Smathers perform sobriety tests, which she failed. A breath test estimated her blood alcohol concentration at 0.18, and she was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI).

Smathers challenged her conviction, arguing the initial traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment because she was seized even though the deputy had no reason to believe that she had done anything wrong. Prosecutors conceded that there was no reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity before the stop, but they insisted that seizing her was legitimate in the circumstances. The problem for the prosecution was the state has never recognized a “community caretaking” exception for anything other than the impounding of abandoned vehicles. The three-judge panel reviewed the response of other states to this issue.

“As these courts have demonstrated, there are countless situations where government intrusion into individual privacy for the purposes of rendering aid is reasonable, regardless of whether criminal activity is afoot,” Judge Robert C. Hunter wrote for the court. “We find the analysis utilized by these courts persuasive, and we can identify no reason why the community caretaking exception should not apply in North Carolina… Thus, we now formally recognize the community caretaking exception as a means of establishing the reasonableness of a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment.”

The appellate judges balanced the interest in having police officers lend assistance was greater than the right of individuals to be free from government intrusion. An officer need only claim concern to effect a seizure without warrant or cause, even if that concern is merely a pretext to stop and investigate on a hunch.

“However, we agree with the proposition espoused by many courts that this exception should be applied narrowly and carefully to mitigate the risk of abuse,” Judge Hunter wrote.

The appellate panel upheld the conviction. A copy of the decision is available in a PDF file at the source link below.

Source: PDF File North Carolina v. Smathers (Court of Appeals, State of North Carolina, 1/21/2014)

http://thenewspaper.com/news/43/4342.asp

4 thoughts on “North Carolina Appeals Court Upholds Traffic Stop Without An Offense

  1. The deputy turned on his blue lights to pull her over to see if she was “okay.” She eventually stopped, and when the deputy came up to the window, Smathers was crying, upset that she had hit a dog.

    After hitting a dog she did not stop?
    OK, after the cop light up the lights she ‘eventually stopped’.

    Hitting something and not stopping would have been reason for the cop to check out the driver under reasonable suspicion. No need for the cop to make shit up. She sounded a little off for just driving away though not illegal.

    1. What part of: “The appellate judges balanced the interest in having police officers lend assistance was greater than the right of individuals to be free from government intrusion”, do you not understand? The NC bench just MADE LAW quashing fourth amendment rights.

      1. …..ha….ha….ha…ha!

        “However, we agree with the proposition espoused by many courts that this exception should be applied narrowly and carefully to mitigate the risk of abuse,” Judge Hunter wrote……. ”

        …he,he,he…ha….ha…ha…no really…did they really say that….?…oh, my god…I’m going to wet myself…. ….ha,ha,ha,ha,ha…!!!!….”narrow and carefully to mitigate the risk of abuse”……wow…!….I’ve got to change my pants….

        RJ O’Guillory
        Author-
        Webster Groves – The Life of an Insane Family

  2. Sorry, but I cannot condone, nor do I have any sympathy for anyone drinking and driving. I wrecked a car once when I was hammered, and had no business driving in the first place. Thankfully, no one else was involved or injured. I did go to jail behind it, and was intelligent enough to learn my lesson. Never did drink and drive again after that, although I don’t drink at all anymore now, anyway.

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*