North Carolina Lawyers Weekly
Where (1) a search warrant authorized law enforcement to search all vehicles present at the listed address or within the curtilage, (2) a picture in the affidavit showed a recreational vehicle in the fenced-in yard at the address, and (3) the affidavit indicated the officers’ intent to search the entire property depicted at the listed address, the warrant authorized the officers to search the RV.
However, officers also searched defendant’s person and the car he was driving when he was stopped about 50 yards from the listed premises. The trial court noted the seizure of several substances, but the court did not state which substances were seized at which location. Because the trial court failed to make required findings of fact, the proper remedy is a remand for additional findings.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress in part. We remand to the trial court for findings of fact as to the locations of the substances recovered at the time of the searches and defendant’s arrest.
State v. Tomlin (Lawyers Weekly No. 012-102-23, 13 pp.) (John Tyson, J.) Appealed from Cabarrus County Superior Court (Martin McGee, J.) Aldean Webster for the state; Cynthia Everson for defendant. North Carolina Court of Appeals (unpublished)
