warrant requirement in North Carolina

2026“When seeking to admit evidence discovered by way of warrantless search in a criminal prosecution, the State bears the burden of establishing that the search falls under an exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Terrell, 372 N.C. 657, 665 , 831 S.E.2d 17 , 22–23 (2019) (citing State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 135 , 291 S.E.2d 618, 620 (1982)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2026“When seeking to admit evidence discovered by way of warrantless search in a criminal prosecution, the State bears the burden of establishing that the search falls under an exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Terrell, 372 N.C. 657, 665 , 831 S.E.2d 17 , 22–23 (2019) (citing State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 135 , 291 S.E.2d 618, 620 (1982)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2023“Consent, however, has long been recognized as a special situation excepted from the warrant requirement, and a search is not unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment “when lawful consent to the search is given.” State v. Smith, 346 N.C. 794, 798 , 488 S.E.2d 210, 213 (1997) (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 222 , 36 L.

2023“Consent, however, has long been recognized as a special situation excepted from the warrant requirement, and a search is not unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment “when lawful consent to the search is given.” State v. Smith, 346 N.C. 794, 798 , 488 S.E.2d 210, 213 (1997) (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 222 , 36 L.

2022Other Exceptions to Warrant Requirement ¶ 39 Nor was the search of the vehicle authorized under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, as the State contends. ¶ 40 “A search of a motor vehicle which is on a public roadway or in a public vehicular area is not in violation of the fourth amendment if it is based on probable cause, even though a warrant has not been obtained.” State v. Isleib, 319 N.C. 634, 638 , 356 S.E.2d 573, 576 (1987) (citing United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 809 , 72 L.

2022Other Exceptions to Warrant Requirement ¶ 39 Nor was the search of the vehicle authorized under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, as the State contends. ¶ 40 “A search of a motor vehicle which is on a public roadway or in a public vehicular area is not in violation of the fourth amendment if it is based on probable cause, even though a warrant has not been obtained.” State v. Isleib, 319 N.C. 634, 638 , 356 S.E.2d 573, 576 (1987) (citing United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 809 , 72 L.

2023This exception to the warrant requirement, known as a “search incident to a lawful arrest . . . derives from interests in officer safety and evidence preservation that are typically implicated in arrest situations.” Id. at 338 .

2017"Among the exceptions to the warrant requirement is a search incident to a lawful arrest," which "derives from interests in officer safety and evidence preservation that are typically implicated in arrest situations." Arizona v. Gant , 556 U.S. 332 , 338, 129 S.Ct. 1710 , 1716, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 , 493 (2009) (citations omitted).

2022JORDAN 2022-NCCOA-215 Opinion of the Court Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). “[E]xceptions to the warrant requirement are few in number and carefully delineated.” Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 749 (1984) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 1.

2022JORDAN 2022-NCCOA-215 Opinion of the Court Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). “[E]xceptions to the warrant requirement are few in number and carefully delineated.” Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 749 (1984) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 1.

2023“Consent, however, has long been recognized as a special situation excepted from the warrant requirement, and a search is not unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment “when lawful consent to the search is given.” State v. Smith, 346 N.C. 794, 798 , 488 S.E.2d 210, 213 (1997) (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 222 , 36 L.

2023“Consent, however, has long been recognized as a special situation excepted from the warrant requirement, and a search is not unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment “when lawful consent to the search is given.” State v. Smith, 346 N.C. 794, 798 , 488 S.E.2d 210, 213 (1997) (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 222 , 36 L.

2019Exceptions to the warrant requirement "are 'jealously and carefully drawn,' " and the "burden is on those seeking the exemption to show the need for it." Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 455, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) (first quoting Jones v. United States , 357 U.S. 493 , 499, 78 S.Ct. 1253 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1514 (1958) ; then quoting United States v. Jeffers , 342 U.S. 48 , 51, 72 S.Ct. 93 , 96 L.Ed. 59 (1951) ).

2019Exceptions to the warrant requirement "are 'jealously and carefully drawn,' " and the "burden is on those seeking the exemption to show the need for it." Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 455, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) (first quoting Jones v. United States , 357 U.S. 493 , 499, 78 S.Ct. 1253 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1514 (1958) ; then quoting United States v. Jeffers , 342 U.S. 48 , 51, 72 S.Ct. 93 , 96 L.Ed. 59 (1951) ).

2017ROMANO Opinion of the Court does not present a ‘per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all drunk- driving cases.’ ” Id. at ___, 785 S.E.2d at 173 (quoting McNeely, 569 U.S. at ___ , 133 S. Ct. at 1556 ).

2017Additionally, in McNeely, though the Supreme Court only specifically addressed the exigency exception to the warrant requirement, McNeely, 569 U.S. at ___ n.3, 133 S. Ct. at 1559 n.3, the Court spoke disapprovingly of per se categorical exceptions to the warrant requirement, id. at ___, 133 S. Ct. at 1564 (“While the desire for a bright-line rule is understandable, the Fourth Amendment will not tolerate adoption of an overly broad categorical approach that would dilute the warrant requirement in a context where significant privacy interests are at stake. . . . [A] case- by-case approach is har

2022Other Exceptions to Warrant Requirement ¶ 39 Nor was the search of the vehicle authorized under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, as the State contends. ¶ 40 “A search of a motor vehicle which is on a public roadway or in a public vehicular area is not in violation of the fourth amendment if it is based on probable cause, even though a warrant has not been obtained.” State v. Isleib, 319 N.C. 634, 638 , 356 S.E.2d 573, 576 (1987) (citing United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 809 , 72 L.

2022Other Exceptions to Warrant Requirement ¶ 39 Nor was the search of the vehicle authorized under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, as the State contends. ¶ 40 “A search of a motor vehicle which is on a public roadway or in a public vehicular area is not in violation of the fourth amendment if it is based on probable cause, even though a warrant has not been obtained.” State v. Isleib, 319 N.C. 634, 638 , 356 S.E.2d 573, 576 (1987) (citing United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 809 , 72 L.

2022Ed. 543 (1925)], 2 Defendant also argues another exception to the warrant requirement, search incident to arrest, State v. Carter, 200 N.C.

2022App. 47 , 50–51, 682 S.E.2d 416, 419 (2009) (“[A] well- recognized exception to the warrant requirement is a search incident to a lawful arrest.” (quotations and citation omitted)), “is invalid” here.

2015Similarly, the Court in Horton observed that “[w]here the initial intrusion that brings the police within plain view of such an article is supported, not by a warrant, but by one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement, the seizure is also legitimate.” 496 U.S. at 135 , 110 S. Ct. at 2307 (emphasis added).

2015Similarly, the Court in Horton observed that “[w]here the initial intrusion that brings the police within plain view of such an article is supported, not by a warrant, but by one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement, the seizure is also legitimate.” 496 U.S. at 135 , 110 S. Ct. at 2307 (emphasis added).

2023JULIUS Opinion of the Court Amendment is ‘reasonableness,’ the warrant requirement is subject to certain exceptions.” Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006).

2022JORDAN 2022-NCCOA-215 Opinion of the Court Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). “[E]xceptions to the warrant requirement are few in number and carefully delineated.” Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 749 (1984) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 1.

2022Exigent Circumstances ¶ 28 One “well-recognized exception” to the warrant requirement “applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460 (2011) (quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted).

2022Exigent Circumstances ¶ 28 One “well-recognized exception” to the warrant requirement “applies when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460 (2011) (quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted).

2023WRIGHT Opinion of the Court warrant requirement.3 State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 135 , 291 S.E.2d 618, 620 (1982); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 19 L.

2023WRIGHT Opinion of the Court warrant requirement.3 State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 135 , 291 S.E.2d 618, 620 (1982); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 19 L.

2017In United States v. Robinson , 414 U.S. 218 , 235, 94 S.Ct. 467 , 476-77, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 , 441 (1973), the Supreme Court of the United States held that "in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a 'reasonable' search under that Amendment." North Carolina's appellate courts have long recognized Robinson's categorical rule allowing a full search of the person incident to a lawful arrest.

2017In United States v. Robinson , 414 U.S. 218 , 235, 94 S.Ct. 467 , 476-77, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 , 441 (1973), the Supreme Court of the United States held that "in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a 'reasonable' search under that Amendment." North Carolina's appellate courts have long recognized Robinson's categorical rule allowing a full search of the person incident to a lawful arrest.

2017This warrant requirement "is subject only to only a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions." Id. at 390 , 524 S.E.2d at 365 (quoting Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347 , 357, 19 L.Ed. 2d 576 , 585 (1967) ).

2017This warrant requirement "is subject only to only a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions." Id. at 390 , 524 S.E.2d at 365 (quoting Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347 , 357, 19 L.Ed. 2d 576 , 585 (1967) ).

2026“When seeking to admit evidence discovered by way of warrantless search in a criminal prosecution, the State bears the burden of establishing that the search falls under an exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Terrell, 372 N.C. 657, 665 , 831 S.E.2d 17 , 22–23 (2019) (citing State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 135 , 291 S.E.2d 618, 620 (1982)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2026“When seeking to admit evidence discovered by way of warrantless search in a criminal prosecution, the State bears the burden of establishing that the search falls under an exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Terrell, 372 N.C. 657, 665 , 831 S.E.2d 17 , 22–23 (2019) (citing State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 135 , 291 S.E.2d 618, 620 (1982)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2023To be voluntary, consent must be free from coercion, 3 Recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement include: a protective search upon reasonable suspicion as described in Section D1, Terry, 392 U.S. 1, 30-31 , L.Ed.2d 889, 911; seizure of suspicious items that are in plain view if the officers possess the legal authority to be on the premise, State v. Allison, 298 N.C. 135, 140 , 257 S.E.2d 417, 420 (1979); when probable cause exists and the exigencies of the situation make a search without a warrant imperative, Allison, 298 N.C. 135, 141 , 257 S.E.2d 417, 421 ; and search incident to a la

2023To be voluntary, consent must be free from coercion, 3 Recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement include: a protective search upon reasonable suspicion as described in Section D1, Terry, 392 U.S. 1, 30-31 , L.Ed.2d 889, 911; seizure of suspicious items that are in plain view if the officers possess the legal authority to be on the premise, State v. Allison, 298 N.C. 135, 140 , 257 S.E.2d 417, 420 (1979); when probable cause exists and the exigencies of the situation make a search without a warrant imperative, Allison, 298 N.C. 135, 141 , 257 S.E.2d 417, 421 ; and search incident to a la

2020Cf. Grady III, 372 N.C. at 526 - 27, 831 S.E.2d at 556-57 (“[T]he primary purpose of SBM is to solve crimes. . . .

2020Cf. Grady III, 372 N.C. at 526 - 27, 831 S.E.2d at 556-57 (“[T]he primary purpose of SBM is to solve crimes. . . .

1987In California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 , 85 L.Ed. 2d 406 (1985), the Supreme Court elaborated on its rationale for the warrant exception, saying that warrantless searches of motor vehicles were sanctioned because “the pervasive schemes of regulation, which necessarily lead to reduced expectations of privacy, and the exigencies attendant to ready mobility justify searches without prior recourse to the authority of a magistrate so long as the overriding standard of probable cause is met.” 2 471 U.S. at 392 , 85 L.Ed. 2d at 414 .

1987In California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 , 85 L.Ed. 2d 406 (1985), the Supreme Court elaborated on its rationale for the warrant exception, saying that warrantless searches of motor vehicles were sanctioned because “the pervasive schemes of regulation, which necessarily lead to reduced expectations of privacy, and the exigencies attendant to ready mobility justify searches without prior recourse to the authority of a magistrate so long as the overriding standard of probable cause is met.” 2 471 U.S. at 392 , 85 L.Ed. 2d at 414 .

2025HANNAH Opinion of the Court “In the absence of a warrant, a search is reasonable only if it falls within a specific exception to the warrant requirement.” Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 , 382, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2482 , 189 L.

2025HANNAH Opinion of the Court “In the absence of a warrant, a search is reasonable only if it falls within a specific exception to the warrant requirement.” Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 , 382, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2482 , 189 L.

2008Consent searches are "recognized as a special situation excepted from the warrant requirement, and a search is not unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when lawful consent to the search is given." State v. Smith, 346 N.C. 794, 798 , 488 S.E.2d 210, 213 (1997) (citation omitted). "[T]he question of whether consent to a search was in fact `voluntary' or was the product of duress or coercion, expressed or implied, is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the circumstances." State v. Motley, 153 N.C.App. 701, 707 , 571 S.E.2d 269, 273 (2002) (quotations an

2008Consent searches are "recognized as a special situation excepted from the warrant requirement, and a search is not unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when lawful consent to the search is given." State v. Smith, 346 N.C. 794, 798 , 488 S.E.2d 210, 213 (1997) (citation omitted). "[T]he question of whether consent to a search was in fact `voluntary' or was the product of duress or coercion, expressed or implied, is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the circumstances." State v. Motley, 153 N.C.App. 701, 707 , 571 S.E.2d 269, 273 (2002) (quotations an

2019State v. Cooke , 306 N.C. 132 , 135, 291 S.E.2d 618 , 620 (1982) (first citing Chimel v. California , 395 U.S. 752 , 762, 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) ; and then citing **666 United States v. Jeffers , 342 U.S. 48 , 51, 72 S.Ct. 93 , 96 L.Ed. 59 (1951) ).

2019State v. Cooke , 306 N.C. 132 , 135, 291 S.E.2d 618 , 620 (1982) (first citing Chimel v. California , 395 U.S. 752 , 762, 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) ; and then citing **666 United States v. Jeffers , 342 U.S. 48 , 51, 72 S.Ct. 93 , 96 L.Ed. 59 (1951) ).

2026Collins v. Virginia, 584 U.S. 586 (2018).

2025App. 239 , 249, 853 S.E.2d 227 , 235 (2020) (citing Collins, 584 U.S. at 595 , 138 S. Ct. at 1672 ).

2023To be voluntary, consent must be free from coercion, 3 Recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement include: a protective search upon reasonable suspicion as described in Section D1, Terry, 392 U.S. 1, 30-31 , L.Ed.2d 889, 911; seizure of suspicious items that are in plain view if the officers possess the legal authority to be on the premise, State v. Allison, 298 N.C. 135, 140 , 257 S.E.2d 417, 420 (1979); when probable cause exists and the exigencies of the situation make a search without a warrant imperative, Allison, 298 N.C. 135, 141 , 257 S.E.2d 417, 421 ; and search incident to a la

1996One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement is a pat-down search conducted pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 20 L.

2019Exceptions to the warrant requirement "are 'jealously and carefully drawn,' " and the "burden is on those seeking the exemption to show the need for it." Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 455, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) (first quoting Jones v. United States , 357 U.S. 493 , 499, 78 S.Ct. 1253 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1514 (1958) ; then quoting United States v. Jeffers , 342 U.S. 48 , 51, 72 S.Ct. 93 , 96 L.Ed. 59 (1951) ).

2019Exceptions to the warrant requirement "are 'jealously and carefully drawn,' " and the "burden is on those seeking the exemption to show the need for it." Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 , 455, 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) (first quoting Jones v. United States , 357 U.S. 493 , 499, 78 S.Ct. 1253 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1514 (1958) ; then quoting United States v. Jeffers , 342 U.S. 48 , 51, 72 S.Ct. 93 , 96 L.Ed. 59 (1951) ).

2025We adopted “community caretaking” as an exception to the warrant requirement in State v. Smathers, 232 N.C.

2019Other exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as exigent circumstances and the automobile exception were also unhelpful "because they apply only to situations where officers are investigating or preventing criminal activity." Id . at 124, 753 S.E.2d at 383 .