IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA15-846
Filed: 15 March 2016
Harnett County, No. 06CRS55854
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
CHARLES MORRIS, Defendant.
Appeal by defendant from Order entered 6 April 2015 by Judge C. Winston
Gilchrist in Harnett County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13
January 2016.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Joseph
Finarelli, for the State.
Meghan Adelle Jones for defendant.
ELMORE, Judge.
Charles Morris (defendant) appeals from the trial court’s order requiring him
to enroll in Satellite-Based Monitoring (SBM) and to register as a sex offender for his
natural life. After careful review, we reverse and remand.
I. Background
On 27 June 2007, defendant waived a bill of indictment and agreed that one
count of first-degree sex offense and three counts of indecent liberties with a child
could be tried upon information. That same day, defendant pleaded guilty to three
STATE V. MORRIS
Opinion of the Court
counts of indecent liberties with a child, and the trial court sentenced him to three
periods of confinement to be served consecutively: twenty to twenty-four months,
twenty to twenty-four months, and seventeen to twenty-one months.
After defendant completed his sentence, the Harnett County Superior Court
held a Determination Hearing on 6 April 2015 to decide if defendant shall register as
a sex offender and enroll in SBM for his natural life. During the hearing, the
following colloquy took place:
MS. GROH: And your Honor, that’s correct. I would agree
that, as the statute reads now, those do fit under as him
being a recidivist although, your Honor, my argument is
going to be the same as Mr. Jones1 in that I would argue
that is [sic] unreasonable search and seizure. I would like
that—knowing what you will do, I would just like that
objection noted for the record, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. GROH: Or that argument, for the record.
THE COURT: Anything else that you want to offer?
MS. GROH: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Anything else the State wants to offer?
MR. BAILEY: No, your Honor.
....
1 Mr. Jones represented the defendant in State v. Blue, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (No. COA
15-837) (2016) in a SBM hearing in front of Judge Gilchrist immediately before defendant’s hearing.
In Blue, the trial court concluded that “lifetime satellite-based monitoring is reasonable and necessary
and required by the statute.” Id.
-2-
STATE V. MORRIS
Opinion of the Court
THE COURT: All right. The Court has considered the case
of Grady v. North Carolina. Court evaluates the issue of
satellite-based monitoring, recognizing that such
monitoring constitutes a search or seizure under the 4th
Amendment of the United States constitution and under
equivalent provisions of North Carolina constitution.
Court finds the defendant has previously been convicted of
a second-degree sex offense, is that right, Mr. Bailey?
MR. BAILEY: That’s correct.
THE COURT: Court finds defendant has been so convicted,
and the current conviction, the most recent conviction for
the defendant is for indecent liberties, also a sexually
violent offense. Court finds the defendant is a recidivist
under the North Carolina statutes. That lifetime
registration is required. Such registration and lifetime
satellite-based monitoring constitutes a reasonable search
or seizure of the person, and both lifetime registration and
lifetime satellite-based monitoring. Defendant’s objections
and exceptions previously stated are noted for the record
and overruled. State requesting any further findings?
MR. BAILEY: No, sir.
The Honorable C. Winston Gilchrist ordered defendant to register as a sex
offender and enroll in SBM for the remainder of his natural life. Defendant gave oral
notice of appeal, filed written notice of appeal on 16 June 2015, and filed a petition
for writ of certiorari, which we granted on 30 December 2015.
II. Analysis
In Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S. ___, 191 L. Ed. 2d 459 (2015), the
Supreme Court of the United States held that North Carolina’s SBM program “effects
a Fourth Amendment Search.” It stated, “That conclusion, however, does not decide
-3-
STATE V. MORRIS
Opinion of the Court
the ultimate question of the program’s constitutionality. The Fourth Amendment
prohibits only unreasonable searches. The reasonableness of a search depends on the
totality of the circumstances, including the nature and purpose of the search and the
extent to which the search intrudes upon reasonable privacy expectations.” Id. at
___, 191 L. Ed. 2d at ___. Ultimately, the case was remanded to the New Hanover
County Superior Court to determine if, based on the above framework, the SBM
program is reasonable.
Like the defendant in State v. Blue, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (No.
COA 15-837) (2016), defendant argues that “the trial court erred in concluding that
continuous [SBM] is reasonable and a constitutional search under the Fourth
Amendment in the absence of any evidence from the State as to reasonableness.” The
State argues that it did not bear the burden of proving the reasonableness of the
search imposed by SBM, and defendant failed to satisfy his burden of establishing
that the search is unreasonable. The State, however, concedes the following:
If this Court concludes that the State bears the burden of
proving the reasonableness of the search imposed by
satellite-based monitoring, the State agrees with
Defendant that the trial court erred by failing to conduct
the appropriate analysis. As a result, this case should be
remanded for a new hearing where the trial court will be
able to take testimony and documentary evidence
addressing the “totality of the circumstances” vital in an
analysis of the reasonableness of a warrantless search[.]
-4-
STATE V. MORRIS
Opinion of the Court
The trial court erred as it did not analyze the “totality of the circumstances,
including the nature and purpose of the search and the extent to which the search
intrudes upon reasonable privacy expectations.” Grady, 575 U.S. at ___, 191 L. Ed.
2d at ___. Rather, the trial court simply “considered the case of Grady v. North
Carolina,” and summarily concluded that “registration and lifetime [SBM]
constitutes a reasonable search or seizure of the person” and is required by statute.
The trial court failed to follow the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United
States and determine, based on the totality of the circumstances, if the SBM program
is reasonable when properly viewed as a search. Grady, 575 U.S. at ___, 191 L. Ed.
2d at ___; see Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 848, 165 L. Ed. 2d 250, 256 (2006)
(“Whether a search is reasonable is determined by assessing, on the one hand, the
degree to which it intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and, on the other, the degree
to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.”)
(internal quotations and citations omitted); Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S.
646, 652–53, 132 L. Ed. 2d 564, 574 (1995). On remand, the State shall bear the
burden of proving that the SBM program is reasonable. State v. Blue, ___ N.C. App.
___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (No. COA 15-837) (2016).
III. Conclusion
We reverse the trial court’s order and remand for a new hearing in which the
trial court shall determine if SBM is reasonable, based on the totality of the
-5-
STATE V. MORRIS
Opinion of the Court
circumstances, as mandated by the Supreme Court of the United States in Grady v.
North Carolina, 575 U.S. ___, 191 L. Ed. 2d 459 (2015).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Judges STROUD and DIETZ concur.
-6-