25 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2024 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Garnergreen2 sentences2017IV; see also State v. Garner, 331 N.C. 491, 506-07 , 417 S.E.2d 502, 510-11 (1992) (adopting the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule and noting that our state constitution’s limitation against unreasonable searches and seizures does not confer protections beyond those afforded by the Fourth Amendment). 2017IV; see also State v. Garner, 331 N.C. 491, 506-07 , 417 S.E.2d 502, 510-11 (1992) (adopting the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule and noting that our state constitution’s limitation against unreasonable searches and seizures does not confer protections beyond those afforded by the Fourth Amendment). | 7 | 9 |
Nix v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2013However, in ruling on defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his laptop computer, the trial court held the search and seizure to be lawful based on the finding “[t]hat the location of [defendant’s] computer would have been discovered inevitably by law enforcement officials[.]” North Carolina, like the majority of jurisdictions, has adopted the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule, discussed by the United States Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 81 L. 2013However, in ruling on defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from his laptop computer, the trial court held the search and seizure to be lawful based on the finding “[t]hat the location of [defendant’s] computer would have been discovered inevitably by law enforcement officials[.]” North Carolina, like the majority of jurisdictions, has adopted the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule, discussed by the United States Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 81 L. | 4 | 8 |
State v. Popegreen2 sentences2024See id. at 114–15. 2021Pope, 333 N.C. at 114 , 423 S.E.2d at 744 . | 2 | 5 |
State v. Phelpsgreen2 sentences2010Phelps, 156 N.C. 2005Although he concurred in this determination as well as the determination regarding the violation of the defendant’s Miranda rights, Judge Hunter argued in dissent that the Phelps majority was incorrect in concluding that the trial court’s erroneous admission of the defendant’s incriminating statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and that the controlled substance was also admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. 156 N.C. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences2014Thus, it is possible that evidence not excluded by the federal constitution might be excluded by the North Carolina Constitution.” (Citation and quotation marks omitted.) Footnote seven goes on to provide, “Compare Carter, 322 N.C. at 722-24 , 370 S.E.2d at 561-62 (refusing to allow a good-faith exception to the North Carolina Constitution with respect to non-testimonial identification orders), with State v. Garner, 331 N.C. 491, 506-08 , 417 S.E.2d 502, 510-11 (1992) (rejecting the notion that Article I, Section 20 of the North Carolina Constitution provides more protection than the Fourth Am 2014Thus, it is possible that evidence not excluded by the federal constitution might be excluded by the North Carolina Constitution.” (Citation and quotation marks omitted.) Footnote seven goes on to provide, “Compare Carter, 322 N.C. at 722-24 , 370 S.E.2d at 561-62 (refusing to allow a good-faith exception to the North Carolina Constitution with respect to non-testimonial identification orders), with State v. Garner, 331 N.C. 491, 506-08 , 417 S.E.2d 502, 510-11 (1992) (rejecting the notion that Article I, Section 20 of the North Carolina Constitution provides more protection than the Fourth Am | 1 | 2 |
State v. Woolridgegreen2 sentences2013“Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, evidence which is illegally obtained can still be admitted into evidence as an exception to the exclusionary rule when ‘the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means.’ ” State v. Woolridge, 147 N.C. 2013“Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, evidence which is illegally obtained can still be admitted into evidence as an exception to the exclusionary rule when ‘the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means.’ ” State v. Woolridge, 147 N.C. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Wellsgreen1 sentence2024See State v. Wells, 225 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cookegreen2 sentences2020The State argues that the detention was permissible pursuant to Summers and, even if it was impermissible, evidence seized from Defendant’s person would have been admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. i. Standard of Review Our review of a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress “is strictly limited to determining whether the trial judge’s underlying findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, in which event they are conclusively binding on appeal, and whether those factual findings in turn support the judge’s ultimate conclusions of law.” State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 1 2020The State argues that the detention was permissible pursuant to Summers and, even if it was impermissible, evidence seized from Defendant’s person would have been admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine. i. Standard of Review Our review of a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress “is strictly limited to determining whether the trial judge’s underlying findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, in which event they are conclusively binding on appeal, and whether those factual findings in turn support the judge’s ultimate conclusions of law.” State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 1 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Popegreen2 sentences2003Our Supreme Court has previously stated: "Whether this exception [to the exclusionary rule] is applicable is initially a question to be addressed by the trial court...." State v. Pope, 333 N.C. 116, 117 , 423 S.E.2d 746, 746 (1992). 2003Our Supreme Court has previously stated: "Whether this exception [to the exclusionary rule] is applicable is initially a question to be addressed by the trial court...." State v. Pope, 333 N.C. 116, 117 , 423 S.E.2d 746, 746 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lovingreen2 sentences2001See State v. Lovin, 339 N.C. 695, 706 , 454 S.E.2d 229, 235 (1995) (trial court's failure to make findings of fact at suppression hearing is not reversible error when there is not a material conflict in the evidence). [2] The State argues in its brief to this Court, pursuant to the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule, that evidence Nowell's residence contained marijuana should not be suppressed because "officers knew of the existence of the marijuana in the residence even before they entered the residence." See State v. Garner, 331 N.C. 491, 502 , 417 S.E.2d 502, 507-08 (19 2001See State v. Lovin, 339 N.C. 695, 706 , 454 S.E.2d 229, 235 (1995) (trial court's failure to make findings of fact at suppression hearing is not reversible error when there is not a material conflict in the evidence). [2] The State argues in its brief to this Court, pursuant to the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule, that evidence Nowell's residence contained marijuana should not be suppressed because "officers knew of the existence of the marijuana in the residence even before they entered the residence." See State v. Garner, 331 N.C. 491, 502 , 417 S.E.2d 502, 507-08 (19 | 1 | 1 |
Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harborred2 sentences1992See Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n of New York Harbor, 378 U.S. 52, 79 , 12 L. 1992See Murphy v. Waterfront Comm’n of New York Harbor, 378 U.S. 52, 79 , 12 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Phifergreen2 sentences1992As this Court explained in State v. Phifer, 297 N.C. 216 , 254 S.E.2d 586 (1979): “Since the evidence sought to be suppressed was obtained through lawful means unrelated to the invalid inventory search, it follows that the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine has no application to this case.” Id. at 226 , 254 S.E.2d at 591 (emphasis added). *513 As recognized by Justice Brennan in his dissent in Nix , there is one crucial distinction between the independent source exception and the inevitable discovery exception: When properly applied, the “independent source” exception allows the prosecutio 1992As this Court explained in State v. Phifer, 297 N.C. 216 , 254 S.E.2d 586 (1979): “Since the evidence sought to be suppressed was obtained through lawful means unrelated to the invalid inventory search, it follows that the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine has no application to this case.” Id. at 226 , 254 S.E.2d at 591 (emphasis added). *513 As recognized by Justice Brennan in his dissent in Nix , there is one crucial distinction between the independent source exception and the inevitable discovery exception: When properly applied, the “independent source” exception allows the prosecutio | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Harris
green
2 sentences2018Under this doctrine, the prosecution has the burden of proving that the evidence, even though obtained through an illegal search, would have been discovered anyway by independent lawful means." State v. Harris , 157 N.C. 2018Under this doctrine, the prosecution has the burden of proving that the evidence, even though obtained through an illegal search, would have been discovered anyway by independent lawful means.” State v. Harris, 157 N.C. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Ramseur
green
1 sentence2020“In addition, the trial court’s unchallenged findings of fact are binding on appeal.” State v. Ramseur, 226 N.C. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Dickerson v. United States
red
2 sentences2003NOTES [1] We note that this rationale may be called into doubt by Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 , 120 S.Ct. 2326 , 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000), in which our United States Supreme Court held that Miranda was a constitutional decision. 2003NOTES [1] We note that this rationale may be called into doubt by Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 , 120 S.Ct. 2326 , 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000), in which our United States Supreme Court held that Miranda was a constitutional decision. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
UNCC Properties, Inc. v. Green
neutral
1 sentence1994App. 581, 589 , 433 S.E.2d 238, 243 , cert. denied, 335 N.C. 242 , 439 S.E.2d 161 (1993); see also State v. Garner, 331 N.C. 491, 502 , 417 S.E.2d 502, 508 (1992) (discussing the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Wallace
neutral
1 sentence1994App. 581, 589 , 433 S.E.2d 238, 243 , cert. denied, 335 N.C. 242 , 439 S.E.2d 161 (1993); see also State v. Garner, 331 N.C. 491, 502 , 417 S.E.2d 502, 508 (1992) (discussing the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Wallace
green
1 sentence1994App. 581, 589 , 433 S.E.2d 238, 243 , cert. denied, 335 N.C. 242 , 439 S.E.2d 161 (1993); see also State v. Garner, 331 N.C. 491, 502 , 417 S.E.2d 502, 508 (1992) (discussing the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Arrington
green
2 sentences1992The defendant further contends, under this first issue, that the derivative evidence obtained directly from the pawnshop, regarding his ownership or purchase of the murder weapon in 1986, should have been suppressed because the exclusionary rule arising from Article I, Section 20 of the North Carolina Constitution does not and should not include an “inevitable discovery exception.” While conceding that there is no provision in our State Constitution which explicitly calls for the exclusionary rule, the defendant contends the rule has been held by this Court to be “implied” in Article I, Sectio 1992The defendant further contends, under this first issue, that the derivative evidence obtained directly from the pawnshop, regarding his ownership or purchase of the murder weapon in 1986, should have been suppressed because the exclusionary rule arising from Article I, Section 20 of the North Carolina Constitution does not and should not include an “inevitable discovery exception.” While conceding that there is no provision in our State Constitution which explicitly calls for the exclusionary rule, the defendant contends the rule has been held by this Court to be “implied” in Article I, Sectio | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States
green
2 sentences1992The Supreme Court, in setting its premise for establishing the inevitable discovery doctrine in Nix , related the historic “core rationale” for the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence as being the need to deter police from violations of constitutional protections, notwithstanding the drastic social cost of letting the obvious *501 ly guilty go free; and the Court further related the breadth of the rule from its genesis in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 , 64 L. 1992The Supreme Court, in setting its premise for establishing the inevitable discovery doctrine in Nix , related the historic “core rationale” for the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence as being the need to deter police from violations of constitutional protections, notwithstanding the drastic social cost of letting the obvious *501 ly guilty go free; and the Court further related the breadth of the rule from its genesis in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 , 64 L. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
United States v. Harvey Willard Merriweather
green
1 sentence1992United States v. Merriweather, 777 F.2d 503 (9th Cir. 1985). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
United States v. Rickie Lee Boatwright
green
1 sentence1992Boatwright, 822 F.2d at 864 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences1992The Nix opinion, in this context, sets forth by footnote the following: *502 The ultimate or inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule is closely related in purpose to the harmless-error rule of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22 , 17 L. 1992The Nix opinion, in this context, sets forth by footnote the following: *502 The ultimate or inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule is closely related in purpose to the harmless-error rule of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22 , 17 L. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.