In State v. Pearson, 348 N.C. 272, 275, 498 S.E.2d 599, 600 (1998), the officer stopped defendant on an interstate highway. Id., 348 N.C. at 276, 498 S.E.2d at 600-01. The officer detected an odor of alcohol, defendant acted nervous and excited, and he made statements inconsistent with those of the passenger regarding their whereabouts the night before. Id., 348 N.C. at 275, 498 S.E.2d at 600. The Court held, "the circumstances . . . did not justify a nonconsensual search of defendant's person." Id., 348 N.C. at 276, 498 S.E.2d at 601. The Court said, "the nervousness of the defendant is not significant. Many people become nervous when stopped by a state trooper. The variance in the statements of the defendant and his fiancee did not show that there was criminal activity afoot." Id. The Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled that there must be "clear and unequivocal consent before a defendant can waive his constitutional rights." Id. at 277. In Pearson, the officer asked the suspect to wait in his patrol car and obtained a signed consent form for the search of his vehicle. Id. at 275-76. It was only later that another officer informed the suspect that his person would be searched, and the officer began to do so without consent. Id. at 276.