of the defendant. Fowler, _N.C. App. at _, _S.E.2d at _. As should be obvious, the search at issue in Fowler was upheld on the basis that the record showed the existence of exigent circumstances justifying an immediate examination of the defendant’s underwear and his anal and genital areas. In Battle, on the other hand, a similar search of the area beneath the defendant’s underwear was invalidated given the absence of exigent circumstances of the type present in Fowler. Smith, on the other hand, upheld a search underneath the defendant’s underwear despite the absence of any exigent circumstances of the sort found in Fowler. According to well-established principles of North Carolina law, we are bound by each of these decisions. Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324, 327 S.E.2d 888 (1985) (<HOLDING>); In re Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379
holding that the court of appeals lacks the authority to overrule decisions of the supreme court of north carolina and has a responsibility to follow those decisions until otherwise ordered by the supreme court holding that the supreme court has final appellate review of agency decisions recognizing that our supreme court does not overrule binding precedent sub silentio and noting that because an appellate court opinion did not mention a contradicting supreme court decision the conflict between the two decisions was not called to the attention of the court which denied review of the appellate decision holding that directly applicable supreme court decisions require this court to overrule its prior holdings holding court of appeals lacks jurisdiction over the governments prosecutorial discretion decisions