Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2020 0 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. Veazeygreen2 sentences2014Courts have previously identified a number of non-exclusive factors relevant to officer discretion and individual privacy, including: the checkpoint’s potential interference with legitimate traffic[]; whether police took steps to put drivers on notice of an approaching checkpoint]; whether the location of the checkpoint was selected by a supervising official, rather than by officers in the field[]; whether police stopped every vehicle that passed through the checkpoint, or stopped vehicles pursuant to a set pat-tem[]; whether drivers could see visible signs of the officers’ authority[]; whethe 2014Courts have previously identified a number of non-exclusive factors relevant to officer discretion and individual privacy, including: the checkpoint’s potential interference with legitimate traffic[]; whether police took steps to put drivers on notice of an approaching checkpoint]; whether the location of the checkpoint was selected by a supervising official, rather than by officers in the field[]; whether police stopped every vehicle that passed through the checkpoint, or stopped vehicles pursuant to a set pat-tem[]; whether drivers could see visible signs of the officers’ authority[]; whethe | 2 | 7 |
State v. Rosegreen2 sentences2008Courts have previously identified a number of non-exclusive factors relevant to officer discretion and individual privacy, including: the checkpoint's potential interference with legitimate traffic, see Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 559 , 96 S.Ct. at 3083-84 , 49 L.Ed.2d at 1129 ; whether police took steps to put drivers on notice of an approaching checkpoint, see id.; whether the location of the checkpoint was selected by a supervising official, rather than by officers in the field, see id.; whether police stopped every vehicle that passed through the checkpoint, or stopped vehicles pursuant t 2008Courts have previously identified a number of non-exclusive factors relevant to officer discretion and individual privacy, including: the checkpoint's potential interference with legitimate traffic, see Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 559 , 96 S.Ct. at 3083-84 , 49 L.Ed.2d at 1129 ; whether police took steps to put drivers on notice of an approaching checkpoint, see id.; whether the location of the checkpoint was selected by a supervising official, rather than by officers in the field, see id.; whether police stopped every vehicle that passed through the checkpoint, or stopped vehicles pursuant t | 1 | 3 |
| 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. Jarrett
green
2 sentences2018Id . at 680-81, 692 S.E.2d at 425 -26 . 2014Jarrett, 203 N.C. | 2 | 2014–2018 |
Illinois v. Lidster
green
2 sentences2008Courts have previously identified a number of non-exclusive factors relevant to officer discretion and individual privacy, including: the checkpoint's potential interference with legitimate traffic, see Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 559 , 96 S.Ct. at 3083-84 , 49 L.Ed.2d at 1129 ; whether police took steps to put drivers on notice of an approaching checkpoint, see id.; whether the location of the checkpoint was selected by a supervising official, rather than by officers in the field, see id.; whether police stopped every vehicle that passed through the checkpoint, or stopped vehicles pursuant t 2008Courts have previously identified a number of non-exclusive factors relevant to officer discretion and individual privacy, including: the checkpoint's potential interference with legitimate traffic, see Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 559 , 96 S.Ct. at 3083-84 , 49 L.Ed.2d at 1129 ; whether police took steps to put drivers on notice of an approaching checkpoint, see id.; whether the location of the checkpoint was selected by a supervising official, rather than by officers in the field, see id.; whether police stopped every vehicle that passed through the checkpoint, or stopped vehicles pursuant t | 2 | 2008–2010 |
State v. Townsend
green
1 sentence2014"Our Court has previously identified a number of non-exclusive factors that courts should consider when determining whether a checkpoint is appropriately tailored, including: whether police spontaneously decided to set up the checkpoint on a whim; whether police offered any reason why a particular road or stretch of road was chosen for the checkpoint; whether the checkpoint had a predetermined starting or ending time; and whether police offered any reason why that particular time span was selected." Id. at ___, 762 S.E.2d at 908 (quoting Veazey, 191 N.C. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz
green
2 sentences2008Courts have previously identified a number of non-exclusive factors relevant to officer discretion and individual privacy, including: the checkpoint's potential interference with legitimate traffic, see Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 559 , 96 S.Ct. at 3083-84 , 49 L.Ed.2d at 1129 ; whether police took steps to put drivers on notice of an approaching checkpoint, see id.; whether the location of the checkpoint was selected by a supervising official, rather than by officers in the field, see id.; whether police stopped every vehicle that passed through the checkpoint, or stopped vehicles pursuant t 2008Courts have previously identified a number of non-exclusive factors relevant to officer discretion and individual privacy, including: the checkpoint's potential interference with legitimate traffic, see Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 559 , 96 S.Ct. at 3083-84 , 49 L.Ed.2d at 1129 ; whether police took steps to put drivers on notice of an approaching checkpoint, see id.; whether the location of the checkpoint was selected by a supervising official, rather than by officers in the field, see id.; whether police stopped every vehicle that passed through the checkpoint, or stopped vehicles pursuant t | 1 | 2008–2008 |
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte
green
2 sentences2008Courts have previously identified a number of non-exclusive factors relevant to officer discretion and individual privacy, including: the checkpoint's potential interference with legitimate traffic, see Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 559 , 96 S.Ct. at 3083-84 , 49 L.Ed.2d at 1129 ; whether police took steps to put drivers on notice of an approaching checkpoint, see id.; whether the location of the checkpoint was selected by a supervising official, rather than by officers in the field, see id.; whether police stopped every vehicle that passed through the checkpoint, or stopped vehicles pursuant t 2008Courts have previously identified a number of non-exclusive factors relevant to officer discretion and individual privacy, including: the checkpoint's potential interference with legitimate traffic, see Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 559 , 96 S.Ct. at 3083-84 , 49 L.Ed.2d at 1129 ; whether police took steps to put drivers on notice of an approaching checkpoint, see id.; whether the location of the checkpoint was selected by a supervising official, rather than by officers in the field, see id.; whether police stopped every vehicle that passed through the checkpoint, or stopped vehicles pursuant t | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences2008Courts have previously identified a number of non-exclusive factors relevant to officer discretion and individual privacy, including: the checkpoint's potential interference with legitimate traffic, see Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 559 , 96 S.Ct. at 3083-84 , 49 L.Ed.2d at 1129 ; whether police took steps to put drivers on notice of an approaching checkpoint, see id.; whether the location of the checkpoint was selected by a supervising official, rather than by officers in the field, see id.; whether police stopped every vehicle that passed through the checkpoint, or stopped vehicles pursuant t 2008Courts have previously identified a number of non-exclusive factors relevant to officer discretion and individual privacy, including: the checkpoint's potential interference with legitimate traffic, see Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 559 , 96 S.Ct. at 3083-84 , 49 L.Ed.2d at 1129 ; whether police took steps to put drivers on notice of an approaching checkpoint, see id.; whether the location of the checkpoint was selected by a supervising official, rather than by officers in the field, see id.; whether police stopped every vehicle that passed through the checkpoint, or stopped vehicles pursuant t | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.