NC: CI PC threshold is “low” but it still has to be met; curtilage admittedly violated; suppression affirmed

The threshold for supporting a CI is low, but it still has to be met, and here it wasn’t. There was no showing at all in the affidavit for SW how the CI was reliable, just a conclusory statement. Then the police entered the curtilage, admittedly illegally, to make observations which supported the claim of PC, but they really didn’t, except for a marijuana smell. The warrant was suppressed, and the factual findings of the trial court are supported by the evidence, so suppression is affirmed. State v. Benters, 2013 N.C. App. LEXIS 1237 (December 3, 2013).

“Defendant further contends that subjecting him to SBM [satellite based monitoring as a convicted sex offender] violates his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under our federal and state constitutions. This Court recently addressed and rejected this precise argument in State v. Martin, __ N.C. App. ___, 735 S.E.2d 238 (2012). Accordingly, this argument is overruled.” State v. Jones, 2013 N.C. App. LEXIS 1233 (December 3, 2013).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.