de minimis rule in North Carolina

9 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1943–2020 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.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Cohoon v. . Coopergreen nc · 1923 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 2 sentences 2020See generally Cohoon v. Cooper, 186 N.C. 26, 28 , 118 S.E. 834, 835 (1923) (“Even if the difference of 95 cents (as to award of $663.96) if award if had been against the defendant, the time of the court, both below and here, costs too much to the public to debate that matter, De minimis non curat lex.”); see also Comstock v. Comstock, 240 N.C. 2020See generally Cohoon v. Cooper, 186 N.C. 26, 28 , 118 S.E. 834, 835 (1923) (“Even if the difference of 95 cents (as to award of $663.96) if award if had been against the defendant, the time of the court, both below and here, costs too much to the public to debate that matter, De minimis non curat lex.”); see also Comstock v. Comstock, 240 N.C.	2	2
United States of America v. $ 404,905.00 in U.S. Currency, Stephen Alexandergreen ca8 · 1999 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014United States v. $404,905.00 in U.S. Currency, 182 F.3d 643, 649 (8th Cir. 1999) (emphasis added).	1	1
State v. Bishopgreen · 1997 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005See, e.g., Bishop, 346 N.C. at 385 , 488 S.E.2d at 779 . 2005See, e.g., Bishop, 346 N.C. at 385 , 488 S.E.2d at 779 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

Case	Cited	Years
In re Brown green nc · 2016 2 sentences 2016Rodriguez v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 1609 , 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015). "[P]rior to Rodriguez , many jurisdictions-including North Carolina-applied a de minimis rule, which allowed police officers to prolong a traffic stop 'for a very short period of time' to investigate for other criminal activity unrelated to the traffic stop-for example, to execute a dog sniff-though the officer[s] ha[d] no reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity." State v. Warren, --- N.C.App. ----, ----, 775 S.E.2d 362 , 365 (2015) (citations omitted), aff'd, --- N.C. ----, 782 S.E.2d 509 (2016). 2016In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 111, 98 S.Ct. 330 , 333, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 , 337 (1977), the United States Supreme Court found that the "additional intrusion" into the personal liberty of the driver by the officer asking him to step out of the car was, at most, " de minimis. " Although "prior to Rodriguez , many jurisdictions-including North Carolina-applied a de minimis rule, ... the holdings in these cases to the extent that they apply the de minimis rule have been overruled by Rodriguez . " State v. Warren, ---N.C.App. ----, ----, 775 S.E.2d 362 , 365 (2015), aff'd per curiam, - -- N.	2	2016–2016
Rodriguez v. United States green scotus · 2015 2 sentences 2016Rodriguez v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 1609 , 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015). "[P]rior to Rodriguez , many jurisdictions-including North Carolina-applied a de minimis rule, which allowed police officers to prolong a traffic stop 'for a very short period of time' to investigate for other criminal activity unrelated to the traffic stop-for example, to execute a dog sniff-though the officer[s] ha[d] no reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity." State v. Warren, --- N.C.App. ----, ----, 775 S.E.2d 362 , 365 (2015) (citations omitted), aff'd, --- N.C. ----, 782 S.E.2d 509 (2016). 2016Rodriguez v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 1609 , 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015). "[P]rior to Rodriguez , many jurisdictions-including North Carolina-applied a de minimis rule, which allowed police officers to prolong a traffic stop 'for a very short period of time' to investigate for other criminal activity unrelated to the traffic stop-for example, to execute a dog sniff-though the officer[s] ha[d] no reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity." State v. Warren, --- N.C.App. ----, ----, 775 S.E.2d 362 , 365 (2015) (citations omitted), aff'd, --- N.C. ----, 782 S.E.2d 509 (2016).	2	2016–2016
State v. Warren green ncctapp · 2015 2 sentences 2016Rodriguez v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 1609 , 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015). "[P]rior to Rodriguez , many jurisdictions-including North Carolina-applied a de minimis rule, which allowed police officers to prolong a traffic stop 'for a very short period of time' to investigate for other criminal activity unrelated to the traffic stop-for example, to execute a dog sniff-though the officer[s] ha[d] no reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity." State v. Warren, --- N.C.App. ----, ----, 775 S.E.2d 362 , 365 (2015) (citations omitted), aff'd, --- N.C. ----, 782 S.E.2d 509 (2016). 2016In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 111, 98 S.Ct. 330 , 333, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 , 337 (1977), the United States Supreme Court found that the "additional intrusion" into the personal liberty of the driver by the officer asking him to step out of the car was, at most, " de minimis. " Although "prior to Rodriguez , many jurisdictions-including North Carolina-applied a de minimis rule, ... the holdings in these cases to the extent that they apply the de minimis rule have been overruled by Rodriguez . " State v. Warren, ---N.C.App. ----, ----, 775 S.E.2d 362 , 365 (2015), aff'd per curiam, - -- N.	2	2016–2016
State v. Sellars green ncctapp · 2012 2 sentences 2015State v. Sellars, 222 N.C.App. 245 , 249-50, 730 S.E.2d 208 , 211 (2012). 2014This Court again applied the de minimis rule in Sellars and held that the extension of a traffic stop for four minutes and 37 seconds for the purpose of a dog sniff was de minimis and did not violate the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. 222 N.C.	2	2014–2015
State v. Brimmer green ncctapp · 2007 2 sentences 2014In Brimmer, 187 N.C. 2012In Brimmer, the dog sniff was de minimis because the police detained defendant for an additional one-and-a-half to two minutes. 187 N.C.	2	2012–2014
Pennsylvania v. Mimms green scotus · 1977 2 sentences 2016In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 111, 98 S.Ct. 330 , 333, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 , 337 (1977), the United States Supreme Court found that the "additional intrusion" into the personal liberty of the driver by the officer asking him to step out of the car was, at most, " de minimis. " Although "prior to Rodriguez , many jurisdictions-including North Carolina-applied a de minimis rule, ... the holdings in these cases to the extent that they apply the de minimis rule have been overruled by Rodriguez . " State v. Warren, ---N.C.App. ----, ----, 775 S.E.2d 362 , 365 (2015), aff'd per curiam, - -- N. 2016In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 111, 98 S.Ct. 330 , 333, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 , 337 (1977), the United States Supreme Court found that the "additional intrusion" into the personal liberty of the driver by the officer asking him to step out of the car was, at most, " de minimis. " Although "prior to Rodriguez , many jurisdictions-including North Carolina-applied a de minimis rule, ... the holdings in these cases to the extent that they apply the de minimis rule have been overruled by Rodriguez . " State v. Warren, ---N.C.App. ----, ----, 775 S.E.2d 362 , 365 (2015), aff'd per curiam, - -- N.	1	2016–2016
Illinois v. Caballes green scotus · 2005 2 sentences 2014Brimmer was based, in part, on Caballes’ holding that a dog sniff conducted during an otherwise lawful stop did not implicate the Fourth Amendment, 543 U.S. at 410 , 160 L. 2014Brimmer was based, in part, on Caballes’ holding that a dog sniff conducted during an otherwise lawful stop did not implicate the Fourth Amendment, 543 U.S. at 410 , 160 L.	1	2014–2014
State v. Williams green nc · 2012 2 sentences 2014Id. at 116 , 726 S.E.2d at 166 . 2014Id. at 116 , 726 S.E.2d at 166 .	1	2014–2014
Wood v. Central Sand & Gravel Co. green tnwd · 1940 1 sentence 1943Ward v. Central Sand & Gravel Co., 33 F. Supp., 40 ; IIart v. Gregory, 218 N. C., 184 , 10 S. E. (2d), 644 .	1	1943–1943
Hart v. . Gregory green nc · 1940 2 sentences 1943Ward v. Central Sand & Gravel Co., 33 F. Supp., 40 ; IIart v. Gregory, 218 N. C., 184 , 10 S. E. (2d), 644 . 1943Ward v. Central Sand & Gravel Co., 33 F. Supp., 40 ; IIart v. Gregory, 218 N. C., 184 , 10 S. E. (2d), 644 .	1	1943–1943

Where else courts name it

PA 61 (1959–2026) IL 53 (1968–2026) OH 52 (2000–2026) CA 24 (1949–2023) WA 23 (2000–2026) NY 21 (1953–2025) TX 15 (1952–2023) NJ 13 (1980–2022) HI 12 (2000–2023) VT 10 (1976–2026) MA 10 (1958–2016) NC 9 (1943–2020) IN 7 (1971–2025) CT 7 (1998–2026) MN 6 (2002–2023) AR 6 (1951–2008) NM 6 (1994–2026) MO 6 (1984–2024) MD 5 (1982–2026) WI 5 (2000–2025) ND 5 (2004–2015) IA 4 (1972–1994) FL 4 (2003–2024) MS 4 (2004–2013) UT 4 (1995–2013) MI 3 (1955–2023) DC 3 (1990–2009) ME 3 (2003–2023) RI 3 (2004–2011) DE 2 (2019–2021) OR 2 (2006–2024) TN 2 (1956–1988) ID 2 (2022–2022)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check