An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA 25-514
Filed 18 March 2026
Vance County, No. 22CR308203-900
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
CORNELIUS OBRAI VANDERGRIFT
Appeal by Defendant from Judgment entered 29 October 2024 by Judge Cindy
K. Sturges in Vance County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18
November 2025.
Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Special Deputy Attorney General John A. Payne, for the State.
Schiller & Schiller, PLLC, by David G. Schiller, for Defendant-Appellant.
HAMPSON, Judge.
Factual and Procedural Background
Cornelius Obrai Vandergrift (Defendant) appeals from the denial of his Motion
to Suppress and a subsequent Judgment entered upon his guilty plea to Felony
Trafficking of Heroin. The Record before us tends to reflect the following: STATE V. VANDERGRIFT
Opinion of the Court
On 28 September 2022, Detective Kevin Allen of the Henderson Police
Department (HPD) applied for a warrant to search a single-family home at 1141
Booker Street in Henderson (the Residence). The Application stated “[t]here is
probable cause to believe that illegal drugs” and related items “are contained within
[the Residence,]” which “are all used to further an ongoing enterprise of conducting
illegal drug sales.”
Det. Allen attached a Probable Cause Affidavit (Affidavit) to the Application.
In the Affidavit, Det. Allen stated he had coordinated three controlled drug buys at
the Residence during the weeks of 21 August 2022, 28 August 2022, and 25
September 2022. Det. Allen averred he had worked with two Confidential Sources of
Information (CSIs), identified in the Affidavit as “CSI 1008” and “CSI 1210,” to
perform the controlled buys. Per Det. Allen, CSIs 1008 and 1210 both had “knowledge
of how illegal narcotics are distributed and sold in the Henderson/Vance County
area.”
Det. Allen averred the first two controlled buys, during the weeks of 21 August
2022 and 28 August 2022, unfolded in similar fashion. Det. Allen and another officer1
met with CSI 1008 and 1210, respectively, at predetermined locations. The officers
searched the CSIs and found no contraband. The officers instructed the CSIs to make
1Det. Allen averred he was joined by one other officer for each controlled buy. For the controlled buys during the weeks of 21 August 2022 and 28 August 2022, Det. Allen averred he was joined by Sergeant Jeremy Wells. For the buy during the week of 25 September 2022, Det. Allen averred he was joined by a “Detective Hunter.”
-2- STATE V. VANDERGRIFT
phone calls to a “subject who they referred to as ‘Bubba’ ” to arrange heroin
transactions.2 “Bubba” instructed the CSIs to drive to the Residence. The CSIs stated
they had previously met “Bubba” at the Residence, which was “ ‘Bubba[’s]’ house.”
The officers gave the CSIs money from the HPD “Special Funds Account” and directed
them to “purchase a quantity of heroin.” The CSIs then went to the Residence. The
officers trailed them there. “Once at the location,” the officers saw the CSIs “talking
to a black male” at the Residence. They also observed a “blue in color Land Rover
Range Rover” parked in the yard beside the Residence. After the CSIs completed the
controlled buys, the officers instructed the CSIs to meet at a predetermined location
and trailed the CSIs to that location. There, the officers again searched the CSIs and
found no contraband other than the “heroin that was purchased,” which the CSIs
“provided” to Det. Allen.
According to the Affidavit, the third controlled buy, during the week of 25
September 2022, followed the same steps until the observation of the CSI at the
Residence. This time, the officers trailed CSI 1008 to the Residence but did not see
CSI 1008 talking to anyone. Instead, the officers saw CSI 1008 “walking from the
[R]esidence[.]” Further, in addition to the blue Range Rover parked in the yard beside
the Residence, the officers saw “a white Honda Accord” in the yard and a “blue in
color Infinity [sic] SUV with large rims” in the driveway. As during the first two
2 Det. Allen averred that a colleague, Lieutenant Woodleif, had “found that ‘Bubba’ is known
to be a nickname for [Defendant]” through “previous investigations.”
-3- STATE V. VANDERGRIFT
controlled buys, Det. Allen averred the officers trailed CSI 1008 to a predetermined
location, searched CSI 1008, and found no contraband other than “the heroin that
was purchased,” which CSI 1008 gave to Det. Allen. Det. Allen averred he also “spoke
with CSI 1008 about the transaction”; CSI 1008 reported “[CSI 1008] went to [the
Residence] and met ‘Bubba,’ ” bought the heroin, left the Residence, and “returned to
the predetermined location.” Per the Affidavit, CSI 1008 “was asked what cars
‘Bubba’ was known to drive, and [CSI 1008] stated a blue Range Rover, [a] white
Honda Accord, and sometimes an Infinity [sic] SUV with rims.”
Additionally, in the Affidavit’s description of the third controlled buy, Det.
Allen averred he had discovered an HPD report indicating a 911 call had been placed
at the Residence in July, “and the 911 dispatcher stated [Defendant] was operating a
blue in color Infinity [sic] SUV with rims was tearing [sic] the house up.” This HPD
report also stated “[Defendant] told officers on scene he lived at the [R]esidence and
received mail there.”
Det. Allen’s 28 September 2022 Application requested a warrant to search the
Residence, Defendant’s person, the blue Range Rover, the blue Infiniti SUV, and the
white Honda Accord. A magistrate issued the Search Warrant the same day. The face
of the Search Warrant indicates it was executed on 30 September 2022 and returned
to the trial court on 18 October 2022.
On 20 February 2023, Defendant was indicted for various drug offenses arising
out of the 30 September 2022 search. Defendant filed a pretrial Motion to Suppress
-4- STATE V. VANDERGRIFT
evidence on 16 May 2024. The trial court held a suppression hearing on 31 July 2024.
After hearing arguments from defense counsel and the State, the trial court denied
Defendant’s Motion. The trial court entered a written Order reflecting this ruling on
20 August 2024. The Order stated Defendant’s “motion to suppress the evidence for
lack of probable cause supporting the search warrant is denied.”
On 29 October 2024, Defendant entered a guilty plea to one count of Felony
Trafficking of Heroin and was sentenced to a term of 70 to 93 months imprisonment.3
Pursuant to his plea agreement, Defendant reserved the right to appeal the trial
court’s denial of his Motion to Suppress. Defendant gave oral Notice of Appeal at the
plea hearing.
Issue
The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred by denying
Defendant’s Motion to Suppress because the Search Warrant Application did not
establish probable cause.
Analysis
“Our review of a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress is strictly limited
to a determination of whether the trial court’s findings are supported by competent
evidence, and in turn, whether the findings support the trial court’s ultimate
conclusion.” State v. San, 289 N.C. App. 693, 699, 891 S.E.2d 314, 319 (2023) (citation,
3 Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court dismissed the other charges pending against
Defendant.
-5- STATE V. VANDERGRIFT
quotation marks, and brackets omitted). “The trial court’s conclusions of law,
however, are reviewed de novo.” Id. (citation omitted). “In reviewing the denial of a
motion to suppress, we examine the evidence introduced at trial in the light most
favorable to the State[.]” State v. Moore, 152 N.C. App. 156, 159, 566 S.E.2d 713, 715
(2002) (citations omitted).
“Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-244, an application for a search warrant
must contain a statement of probable cause and ‘allegations of fact supporting the
statement of probable cause. The statements must be supported by one or more
affidavits particularly setting forth the facts and circumstances establishing probable
cause. . . .’ ” State v. Eddings, 280 N.C. App. 204, 209, 866 S.E.2d 499, 503 (2021)
(brackets omitted) (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-244(2)-(3) (2020)). A probable cause
affidavit “must establish a nexus between the objects sought and the place to be
searched. Usually this connection is made by showing that criminal activity actually
occurred at the location to be searched or that the fruits of a crime that occurred
elsewhere are observed at a certain place.” State v. McCoy, 100 N.C. App. 574, 576,
397 S.E.2d 355, 357 (1990) (citations omitted).
“[W]hen addressing whether a search warrant is supported by probable cause,
a reviewing court must consider the totality of the circumstances.” State v. Sinapi,
359 N.C. 394, 398, 610 S.E.2d 362, 365 (2005) (citations and quotation marks
omitted). In applying the totality of the circumstances test, our Supreme Court has
stated an affidavit is sufficient to establish probable cause “if it supplies reasonable
-6- STATE V. VANDERGRIFT
cause to believe that the proposed search for evidence probably will reveal the
presence upon the described premises of the items sought and that those items will
aid in the apprehension or conviction of the offender.” State v. Arrington, 311 N.C.
633, 636, 319 S.E.2d 254, 256 (1984) (citation omitted). In the totality of the
circumstances analysis,
[t]he task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for . . . concluding that probable cause existed.
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527, 548
(1983) (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). See also State v. Riggs, 328
N.C. 213, 291, 400 S.E.2d 429, 433 (1991) (recognizing Illinois v. Gates “has been
accepted by [the North Carolina Supreme Court] as setting the appropriate standard
for showing probable cause under both the federal and state constitutions.” (citation
omitted)). On appellate review, “we are cognizant that ‘great deference should be paid
[to] a magistrate’s determination of probable cause, and that after-the-fact scrutiny
should not take the form of a de novo review.’ ” Sinapi, 359 N.C. at 398, 610 S.E.2d
at 365 (quoting Arrington, 311 N.C. at 638, 319 S.E.2d at 258).
In the case sub judice, Defendant first argues the Search Warrant Application
was insufficient to establish probable cause because, in his Affidavit, Det. Allen did
-7- STATE V. VANDERGRIFT
not aver: (1) the heroin recovered from the CSIs after the controlled buys had been
purchased at the Residence by the CSIs; or (2) that the officers had witnessed the
CSIs buy the heroin at the Residence. The State contends Det. Allen need not have
directly observed the drug sales to have developed probable cause to believe the sales
happened at the Residence. The State therefore asks this Court to “reject Defendant’s
request to reverse the trial court’s order to deny his Motion to Suppress.” We agree
with the State.
“Probable cause requires not certainty, but only ‘a probability or substantial
chance of criminal activity.’ ” State v. McKinney, 368 N.C. 161, 165, 775 S.E.2d 821,
825 (2015) (emphasis in original) (quoting Riggs, 328 N.C. at 219, 400 S.E.2d at 433).
In a probable cause affidavit, “ ‘[a law enforcement] officer may rely upon information
received through an informant, rather than upon his direct observations, so long as
the informant’s statement is reasonably corroborated by other matters within the
officer’s knowledge.’ ” State v. Clark, 299 N.C. App. 445, 449-50, 918 S.E.2d 225, 230
(2025) (quoting State v. Bone, 354 N.C. 1, 10, 550 S.E.2d 482, 488 (2001)). We
recognize minimal standards for probable cause affidavits, namely: “[p]robable cause
cannot be shown ‘by affidavits which are purely conclusory, stating only the affiant’s
or an informer’s belief that probable cause exists without detailing any of the
underlying circumstances upon which that belief is based.’ ” State v. Campbell, 282
N.C. 125, 130-31, 191 S.E.2d 752, 756 (1972) (quoting United States v. Ventresca, 380
U.S. 102, 108-09, 85 S. Ct. 741, 746, 13 L. Ed. 2d 684, 689 (1965)). However, because
-8- STATE V. VANDERGRIFT
“affidavits attached to search warrants are normally drafted by nonlawyers in the . .
. haste of a criminal investigation, courts are reluctant to scrutinize them in a
hypertechnical, rather than a commonsense, manner.” McKinney, 368 N.C. at 164,
775 S.E.2d at 824 (citation and quotation marks omitted). The magistrate views the
evidence in an officer’s probable cause affidavit “from the perspective of a police
officer with the affiant’s training and experience, and the commonsense judgments
reached by officers in light of that training and specialized experience.” Id. at 164-65,
775 S.E.2d at 825 (citations omitted). Again, on appellate review, our role is to ensure
the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed to justify
the issuance of the search warrant. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 238-39, 103 S. Ct. at 2332,
76 L. Ed. 2d at 548.
Here, the Affidavit indicates Det. Allen acted with reasonable caution in
coordinating the three controlled drug buys. First, Det. Allen set forth relevant
examples of his law enforcement training, education, and qualifications. The Affidavit
then described the controlled buys, providing, in pertinent part, the following details:
(1) the officers met with the CSIs at predetermined locations and searched them to
ensure they possessed no illegal contraband; (2) the officers instructed the CSIs to
contact “Bubba,” which the officers believed was a nickname for Defendant, to
arrange heroin purchases at the Residence; (3) the officers gave HPD funds to the
CSIs and instructed them to buy heroin at the Residence; (4) the officers trailed the
CSIs to the Residence, where they witnessed them “talking to a black male” during
-9- STATE V. VANDERGRIFT
the first two buys and “walking from” the Residence during the third buy; (5) after
trailing the CSIs to predetermined locations, the officers searched the CSIs again to
confirm they had no contraband other than the heroin they had purchased; and (6)
the officers recovered the heroin from the CSIs.
Although Det. Allen did not aver he had directly witnessed Defendant (or
anyone else) sell heroin to the CSIs, he provided detailed information that
corroborated a reasonable belief that, as planned, the CSIs had bought the heroin at
the Residence. Specifically, the officers’ tactics of searching the CSIs for contraband
before and after the buys and trailing them to and from the Residence provided
sufficient information for Det. Allen to form a “commonsense judgment” that the CSIs
had purchased the heroin at the Residence. See McKinney, 368 N.C. at 164, 775
S.E.2d at 824. Thus, the Affidavit did not rely on “purely conclusory assertions”;
instead, Det. Allen provided detailed factual allegations underlying his belief
probable cause existed to justify the issuance of a search warrant.4 See Campbell, 282
N.C. at 130-31, 191 S.E.2d at 756 (citation omitted).
4 To the extent Defendant argues the Affidavit was insufficient to demonstrate probable cause
because Det. Allen did not specifically state the heroin recovered had been purchased by the CSIs at the Residence, we note “a magistrate is entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the material supplied to him by an applicant for a warrant.” Sinapi, 359 N.C. at 399, 610 S.E.2d at 365 (citing Riggs, 328 N.C. at 221, 400 S.E.2d at 434). Here, the reviewing magistrate could reasonably infer that when Det. Allen averred the CSIs “provided me with the heroin that was purchased,” Det. Allen was referring to the heroin the CSIs purchased at the Residence in accordance with the plan for the controlled buys.
- 10 - STATE V. VANDERGRIFT
Additionally, information in the Affidavit linked Defendant to the Residence.
Per Det. Allen, the CSIs told officers they had “previously met ‘Bubba’ ” at the
Residence, which was “ ‘Bubba[’s]’ house.” Det. Allen averred “Bubba” was a known
nickname for Defendant based on information a colleague, Lt. Woodleif, had learned
in prior investigations.5 Moreover, Det. Allen averred he had found a police report
indicating HPD had previously visited the Residence after a 911 call, and Defendant
told officers on scene at the Residence that he lived and received mail there. Thus,
the Affidavit established a “nexus” between Defendant, the Residence, and the heroin
recovered by HPD from the CSIs after the controlled buys. See McCoy, 100 N.C. App.
at 576, 397 S.E.2d at 357. This nexus, in turn, supported both the trial court’s
Conclusion the Affidavit established probable cause and its resulting denial of
Defendant’s Motion to Suppress.
Defendant also challenges the “lack of any assertion of the CSIs’ credibility” in
the Affidavit. Defendant contends Det. Allen’s averments about the CSIs’ “knowledge
of how illegal narcotics are distributed and sold in the Henderson/Vance County area”
were insufficient to establish the reliability of the CSIs as informants, which in turn
5 A law enforcement officer may rely on information in the collective knowledge of all officers
to establish probable cause. State v. Bowman, 193 N.C. App. 104, 109, 666 S.E.2d 831, 835 (2008). Thus, in his Affidavit, Det. Allen was entitled to rely on Lt. Woodlief’s information that “Bubba” was a known nickname for Defendant to support Det. Allen’s claim probable cause existed to issue a search warrant
- 11 - STATE V. VANDERGRIFT
undermines the trial court’s Conclusion the Affidavit established probable cause to
issue the Search Warrant.
For this argument, Defendant cites State v. Riggs, 328 N.C. 213, 400 S.E.2d
429 (1991). Defendant highlights our Supreme Court’s conclusion in Riggs that a
police officer affiant’s statement about a CSI who “had made two prior controlled
purchases of drugs and also previously had given accurate information” to police that
led to a drug-related arrest was “evidence [that] established that [CSI’s] reliability.”
Id. at 218, 400 S.E.2d at 432. Defendant points out that here, unlike in Riggs, Det.
Allen did not aver that either CSI 1008 or 1210 had previously given accurate
information to law enforcement. Instead, Defendant notes Det. Allen only stated the
CSIs had knowledge of the local drug trade, which he argues was insufficient to
support a conclusion that the CSIs were credible and reliable.
Defendant’s argument is misplaced. Riggs expressly stated that a “track
record” of accurate tips is not required to demonstrate a CSI’s reliability for the
purpose of establishing probable cause. Id. at 219, 400 S.E.2d at 433. To the contrary,
our Supreme Court clarified “the State is not limited to certain narrowly defined
categories or quantities of information” when it seeks to demonstrate the reliability
of factual allegations in a search warrant application. Id.
Thus, State v. Riggs does not support Defendant’s position. Under Riggs, Det.
Allen was not required to provide information showing the CSIs had a track record of
accurate tips to law enforcement. See id. Instead, the Affidavit established the CSIs’
- 12 - STATE V. VANDERGRIFT
credibility by recounting their participation in three similar controlled drug buys
coordinated by an experienced detective. For example, the Affidavit described
investigative safeguards that helped ensure the CSIs provided reliable information
and evidence: searches of the CSIs for contraband before and after they visited the
Residence; instructions to the CSIs to contact “Bubba” to arrange heroin transactions;
trailing the CSIs to and from the Residence to monitor their actions; and recovering
the heroin from the CSIs soon after the controlled buys.
Moreover, Det. Allen’s averments about the CSIs’ knowledge of the local drug
trade—which appear to have been aimed at establishing the CSIs’ reliability,
veracity, and basis of knowledge for the purpose of providing information for this drug
investigation—were reinforced by details about the CSIs’ actions during the
controlled buys. The Affidavit described the CSIs’ reports of having previously met
“Bubba” at the Residence. Per Det. Allen, the CSIs also informed the officers that the
Residence was “ ‘Bubba’s’ house.” Further, the Affidavit described the CSIs’ ability to
contact “Bubba” by phone and set up meetings at the Residence to buy heroin on short
notice. Thus, while Defendant contends “knowing where in town to purchase
narcotics, standing alone, does not bolster a person’s credibility[,]” the Affidavit’s
descriptions of the CSIs’ conduct during the controlled buys supported Det. Allen’s
assertions about their knowledge of the local drug trade and assisted in
demonstrating the CSIs’ credibility, reliability, veracity, and basis of knowledge for
- 13 - STATE V. VANDERGRIFT
the purpose of the magistrate’s probable cause determination. See Gates, 462 U.S. at
238-39, 103 S. Ct. at 2332, 76 L. Ed. 2d at 548.
In sum, the Affidavit describes an experienced drug investigator’s coordination
of three controlled drug buys, which featured safeguards aimed at ensuring the CSIs
acted consistently and that the heroin recovered by HPD had indeed been purchased
at the Residence. Thus, the factual allegations in the probable cause Affidavit
demonstrated Det. Allen used his training, experience, and the evidence recovered
during the controlled buys to form the commonsense judgment probable cause existed
to justify the issuance of a search warrant. See McKinney, 368 N.C. at 164-65, 775
S.E.2d at 825. Therefore, the totality of the circumstances provided the magistrate
with a substantial basis to reach the conclusion there was probable cause to believe
contraband was present in the places to be searched. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 238-39,
103 S. Ct. at 2332, 76 L. Ed. 2d at 548. Consequently, because the Search Warrant
Application was supported by probable cause and the magistrate properly issued the
Search Warrant, the trial court did not err by denying Defendant’s Motion to
Suppress.
Conclusion
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we affirm both the trial court’s Order
denying the Motion to Suppress and the Judgment entered upon Defendant’s guilty
plea.
AFFIRMED.
- 14 - STATE V. VANDERGRIFT
Judges ARROWOOD and COLLINS concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
- 15 -