NC Supreme Court Rules in Chapel Hill FD Case

The North Carolina Supreme Court has issued a final ruling in the case of State v. Dorothy Verkerk that raised the issue of whether firefighters who use their red lights and sirens to stop a vehicle driving recklessly violate the Fourth Amendment.

The facts according to the court:

• At approximately 10:30 p.m. on 27 May 2011, Fire Engine 32 of the Chapel Hill Fire Department was returning from a call. Fire Department Lieutenant Gordon Shatley, who was commanding the Engine, became concerned about the erratic driving of a vehicle proceeding in the same direction on U.S. Highway 15-501 South in Chapel Hill.
• Lt. Shatley relayed information about the vehicle’s description, actions, and location to the Chapel Hill Police Department. The police were unable to respond promptly, so Lt. Shatley followed the vehicle. When he observed it continue to drift between lanes and then nearly strike a bus, he ordered the driver of Engine 32 to activate its emergency lights and siren. He testified that he did so to keep other motorists from passing both vehicles.
• The vehicle then moved into the left lane and sharply back into the far right lane, where it came to an abrupt stop after hitting the curb with force sufficient to send sparks shooting into the air. Engine 32 stopped behind it and Lt. Shatley approached the vehicle to offer assistance to defendant driver. After Lt. Shatley spoke with defendant for at least ten minutes and she appeared to agree that her car could be parked for the evening at a nearby lot, she unexpectedly drove away from the scene and turned onto Environ Way, where parking was available. At approximately the same time, Chapel Hill police officers arrived and Lt. Shatley indicated where the vehicle had gone.
• The officers drove in that direction while Lt. Shatley and Engine 32 returned to the fire station. Thereafter, Chapel Hill police officers encountered1 defendant, investigated her condition, and cited her for driving while impaired and driving while license revoked.

Verkerk wanted all evidence of her arrest and intoxication suppressed claiming Lt. Shatley’s use of emergency lights and siren constituted an illegal seizure under the 4^th Amendment.

The trial court denied her request, and she pled guilty reserving the right to challenge the suppression ruling on appeal. The North Carolina Court of Appeals concluded that Lt. Shatley’s use of the lights and siren was a seizure and remanded the case back to the trial court to determine whether he intended to apprehend/arrest Verkerk or was acting out of a genuine concern for public safety.

The Supreme Court opted to take a different tact entirely, concluding “we need not consider the extent of Lt. Shatley’s authority to conduct a traffic stop or even whether the encounter with Lt. Shatley amounted to a ‘legal stop.’”

• The record demonstrates that sufficient other evidence was presented to establish that the Chapel Hill police had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant based upon Lt. Shatley’s observations of defendant’s driving that he transmitted to the Chapel Hill police before activating the lights and siren. When Chapel Hill police officers stopped defendant, they made their own assessment of her condition and collected sufficient evidence to support the charges they subsequently filed.
• Because the stop by the Chapel Hill police was supported by reasonable suspicion independent of any evidence derived from Lt. Shatley’s stop of defendant, we conclude that the trial court correctly denied defendant’s motion to suppress.

With the, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. Verkerk’s next stop if she so chooses to appeal: The US Supreme Court.

Here is a copy of the ruling: State v Verkerk