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.
9 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2019–2020 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. Gradygreen2 sentences2020And, because “the State . . . simply failed to show how monitoring [a recidivist] individual’s movements for the rest of his life would deter future offenses, protect the public, or prove guilt of some later crime[,]” the Supreme Court held that “the State has not met its burden of establishing the reasonableness of the SBM program under the Fourth Amendment balancing test required for warrantless searches.” Id. 2020It reached this conclusion because “the State ha[d] not met its burden of establishing the reasonableness of the SBM program under the Fourth Amendment balancing test required for warrantless searches.” Id. at 544 , 831 S.E.2d at 568 . | 2 | 8 |
City of L. A. v. Patelgreen1 sentence2019See Patel, 135 S. Ct. at 2451 (“[T]he constitutional ‘applications’ that offenders who commit these “most heinous crimes” would permissibly authorize mandatory lifetime SBM under the Fourth Amendment balancing test. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.