State of North Carolina v. J’Marius Deshaw Howze (COA24-624) is a published opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals filed in August of 2026 that raises some very creative arguments on the issue of search and seizure. This is a Guilford County case in which Mr. Howze was convicted of first-degree murder. Interestingly, the State used evidence collected from Mr. Howze in an unrelated, but unsolved, case in which he was an alleged victim.
In 2019 largely through the use of technology to extract data from cell phones, law enforcement investigators were able to connect Mr. Howze to a murder in Hight Point. One of the detectives from the High Point Police Department who was working the case focused his attention on a firearm that was recovered from the crime scene. He had a suspicion that this firearm contained traceable DNA. Although it is unclear from the opinion how this was precipitated, but at some point this detective came across a 2016 report when Mr. Howze sought treatment at a local hospital for a gunshot wound. In that incident an officer with the High Point Police Department responded to the hospital to investigate. The officer spoke to Mr. Howze who was wearing a bloody shirt. A crime scene technician collected the shirt as evidence. That incident was never solved and the shirt remained in an evidence locker. Both the shirt and DNA swabs from the firearm retrieved from the 2019 crime scene were sent to the State Crime Lab for DNA analysis and comparison. The results showed a DNA matched to Mr. Howze. A warrant for Mr. Howze’s arrest for first-degree murder was obtained.
Mr. Howze was indicted for first-degree murder in July of 2021. Prior to his trial, Mr. Howze moved to suppress the DNA evidence collected while he was receiving medical treatment in 2016. In support of his motion, Mr. Howze argued that use of this evidence constituted an illegal search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The hearing on Mr. Howze’s motion was held in December of 2023. At the suppression hearing, the officer who spoke with Mr. Howze at the hospital in 2016 provided testimony. This officer testified that the bloody shirt was seized because he saw it in plain view and that it had evidentiary value. A lieutenant with the High Point Police Department assigned to investigate the 2016 incident also provided testimony. He testified that the shirt was evidence that “an assault took place.” He also informed the court that the 2016 incident remained unsolved and that for this reason, the shirt would not have been released. He further testified that Mr. Howze had not responded to any inquiries regarding their investigation of the incident since April of 2018. The motion to suppress was denied. In its ruling on the motion, the trial court concluded that the items were, “…lawfully seized and taken as part of a reasonable practice and procedure in investigating a violent crime that the defendant indicated was perpetuated on him…” The trial court further ruled that, “….the defendant can no longer assert privacy claims or unreasonable searches on items that have been lawfully seized, including any samples of blood.” The trial proceeded; Mr. Howze was convicted of first-degree murder; and he gave notice of appeal.
The appellate Court evaluated the trial court’s ruling to determine if the findings of fact were supported by competent evidence and if the findings of fact supported the conclusions of law. The conclusions of law were reviewed de novo. The court began its analysis by examining the lawfulness of the search. Mr. Howze’s shirt was seized without a warrant and warrantless seizures are usually frowned upon. However, an exception exists when the plain view doctrine is applicable. For this exception to apply, there must be evidence that: 1. The officer’s arrival on the scene was not a Fourth Amendment violation; 2. The evidence’s incriminating character was immediately apparent; 3. The officer had a lawful right to seize the object. Here the officer went to the hospital in response to a “shots fired call.” Upon arriving at the hospital, the officer saw and spoke with Mr. Howze who had clearly visible injuries and was wearing a bloody shirt. The evidentiary value of the bloody shirt was immediately apparent. The officer had a legal right to be at the hospital because they were investigating a potential crime. The bloody shirt was evidence of that potential crime therefore its seizure was lawful.
Mr. Howze then raises an interesting argument also based on the Fourth Amendment. Even if the seizure of the shirt was lawful, Mr. Howze contends that a warrantless search of his DNA violates the Fourth Amendment because he had a reasonable expectation of privacy “over his genetic material.” Furthermore, Mr. Howze argues that the plain view doctrine cannot serve as the basis for a warrantless search of his clothing because he “did not knowingly expose his DNA to the public.” In addressing this argument, the Court references a previous appellate ruling on this issue. The issue of warrantless but lawfully seized genetic material was addressed in State v. Barkley, 144 N.C. App. 514. 518. 551 S.E.2d 131, 134 (2001). After a person’s blood sample has been lawfully obtained, he is unable to assert any privacy claims with respect to that sample. Once the sample has been obtained, scientific analysis of that sample does not involve any additional search and seizure of the individual. The Court found that Mr. Howze’s DNA sample was obtained lawfully and the laboratory analysis on that sample did not infringe on his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Thus, the North Carolina Court of Appeals did not err by denying Mr. Howze’s motion to suppress.
This case once again illustrates the impact that technology and science have on the areas of criminal investigation and prosecution. However, these new methods would never come into play were it not for human beings communicating with each other. The information extracted from communicating done via cell phones and the interoffice communication of law enforcement officers in the High Point Police Department played key roles developing the evidence necessary to successfully prosecute this case.
Recent Comments