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.
8 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Leongreen2 sentences2016Compare State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709, 724 , 370 S.E.2d 553, 562 (1988), with United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 913 (1984) (adopting a good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule). 1986Id. at —, 104 S.Ct. at 3407 , 82 L.Ed. 2d at 684 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences2016Compare State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709, 724 , 370 S.E.2d 553, 562 (1988), with United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 913 (1984) (adopting a good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule). 2016Compare State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709, 724 , 370 S.E.2d 553, 562 (1988), with United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 913 (1984) (adopting a good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lombardogreen2 sentences1985In State v. Lombardo, 306 N.C. 594 , 295 S.E. 2d 399 (1982), our Supreme Court held, without qualification, that the fourth amendment exclusionary rule does not apply in probation revocation hearings. 1985In State v. Lombardo, 306 N.C. 594 , 295 S.E. 2d 399 (1982), our Supreme Court held, without qualification, that the fourth amendment exclusionary rule does not apply in probation revocation hearings. | 1 | 1 |
United States of America Ex Rel. Herbert Sperling, Relator-Appellant v. Walter v. Fitzpatrick, Warden, West Street House of Detentiongreen1 sentence1982Sperling v. Fitzpatrick, 426 F.2d 1161, 1163-64 (2d Cir. 1970) (exclusionary rule not applicable to parole revocation proceedings). [7] The United States Supreme Court made the fourth amendment exclusionary rule applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment in 1961 in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). [1] A "drug courier profile" is a list prepared by the DEA of characteristics it believes many drug smugglers possess. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Illinois v. Krull
green
2 sentences2017Under the good faith exception, "the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence obtained by police officers who acted in objectively reasonable reliance upon a search warrant issued by a neutral magistrate, but where the warrant was ultimately found to be unsupported by probable cause." Illinois v. Krull , 480 U.S. 340 , 342, 94 L.Ed. 2d 364 , 370 (1987). 2017Under the good faith exception, "the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence obtained by police officers who acted in objectively reasonable reliance upon a search warrant issued by a neutral magistrate, but where the warrant was ultimately found to be unsupported by probable cause." Illinois v. Krull , 480 U.S. 340 , 342, 94 L.Ed. 2d 364 , 370 (1987). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Nix v. Williams
green
2 sentences1992The ruling of the trial court here in question, in allowing the challenged evidence under an “inevitable discovery” exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, was predicated in chief upon the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 81 L. 1992The ruling of the trial court here in question, in allowing the challenged evidence under an “inevitable discovery” exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, was predicated in chief upon the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 81 L. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. McMilliam
green
2 sentences1985In so doing, the Supreme Court expressly overruled State v. McMilliam, 243 N.C. 775 , 92 S.E. 2d 205 (1956), holding that illegally seized evidence cannot be used to revoke probation, and held that “evidence which does not meet the standards of the fourth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution may be admitted in a probation revocation hearing.” Lombardo, supra at 602 , 295 S.E. 2d at 404 (original emphasis). 1985In so doing, the Supreme Court expressly overruled State v. McMilliam, 243 N.C. 775 , 92 S.E. 2d 205 (1956), holding that illegally seized evidence cannot be used to revoke probation, and held that “evidence which does not meet the standards of the fourth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution may be admitted in a probation revocation hearing.” Lombardo, supra at 602 , 295 S.E. 2d at 404 (original emphasis). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Massachusetts v. Sheppard
green
2 sentences1984On the same day in the case of Massachusetts v. Sheppard, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 3424 , 82 L.Ed.2d 737 (1984), the Supreme Court held the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule did not require exclusion of evidence seized by the police pursuant to a warrant subsequently invalidated because of technical errors on the part of the issuing judge. 1984On the same day in the case of Massachusetts v. Sheppard, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 3424 , 82 L.Ed.2d 737 (1984), the Supreme Court held the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule did not require exclusion of evidence seized by the police pursuant to a warrant subsequently invalidated because of technical errors on the part of the issuing judge. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Mapp v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1982Sperling v. Fitzpatrick, 426 F.2d 1161, 1163-64 (2d Cir. 1970) (exclusionary rule not applicable to parole revocation proceedings). [7] The United States Supreme Court made the fourth amendment exclusionary rule applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment in 1961 in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). [1] A "drug courier profile" is a list prepared by the DEA of characteristics it believes many drug smugglers possess. 1982Sperling v. Fitzpatrick, 426 F.2d 1161, 1163-64 (2d Cir. 1970) (exclusionary rule not applicable to parole revocation proceedings). [7] The United States Supreme Court made the fourth amendment exclusionary rule applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment in 1961 in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). [1] A "drug courier profile" is a list prepared by the DEA of characteristics it believes many drug smugglers possess. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Agnello v. United States
green
2 sentences1978Defendant finally admitted that he had "found out that something was found in my house" but that he "didn't find out where it was." On redirect examination defendant testified that he had been prosecuted for the drugs found in his home on 3 January 1975, but that a district court judge "ruled that the search of my house was unlawful." Defendant now insists, citing Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62 , 74 S.Ct. *783 354, 98 L.Ed. 503 (1954), and Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20 , 46 S.Ct. 4 , 70 L.Ed. 145 (1925), that the admission of this evidence was a violation of the Fourth Amendment 1978Defendant finally admitted that he had "found out that something was found in my house" but that he "didn't find out where it was." On redirect examination defendant testified that he had been prosecuted for the drugs found in his home on 3 January 1975, but that a district court judge "ruled that the search of my house was unlawful." Defendant now insists, citing Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62 , 74 S.Ct. *783 354, 98 L.Ed. 503 (1954), and Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20 , 46 S.Ct. 4 , 70 L.Ed. 145 (1925), that the admission of this evidence was a violation of the Fourth Amendment | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Walder v. United States
green
2 sentences1978Defendant finally admitted that he had "found out that something was found in my house" but that he "didn't find out where it was." On redirect examination defendant testified that he had been prosecuted for the drugs found in his home on 3 January 1975, but that a district court judge "ruled that the search of my house was unlawful." Defendant now insists, citing Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62 , 74 S.Ct. *783 354, 98 L.Ed. 503 (1954), and Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20 , 46 S.Ct. 4 , 70 L.Ed. 145 (1925), that the admission of this evidence was a violation of the Fourth Amendment 1978Defendant finally admitted that he had "found out that something was found in my house" but that he "didn't find out where it was." On redirect examination defendant testified that he had been prosecuted for the drugs found in his home on 3 January 1975, but that a district court judge "ruled that the search of my house was unlawful." Defendant now insists, citing Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62 , 74 S.Ct. *783 354, 98 L.Ed. 503 (1954), and Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20 , 46 S.Ct. 4 , 70 L.Ed. 145 (1925), that the admission of this evidence was a violation of the Fourth Amendment | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.