Aguilar test in North Carolina

7 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1974–1983 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 (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
United States v. Harrisgreen scotus · 1971 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1979–1982 2 sentences 1982Even were the second prong of the Aguilar test applicable here, Smith’s statement that he could procure LSD for the officers and his acquisition of the drug amounted to an admission against penal interest, United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573 , 29 L.Ed. 2d 723 , 91 S.Ct. 2075 (1971); State v. Harris, 43 N.C. 1982Even were the second prong of the Aguilar test applicable here, Smith’s statement that he could procure LSD for the officers and his acquisition of the drug amounted to an admission against penal interest, United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573 , 29 L.Ed. 2d 723 , 91 S.Ct. 2075 (1971); State v. Harris, 43 N.C.	1	2
State v. Gibsongreen ncctapp · 1977 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1983–1983 2 sentences 1983This is sufficient to meet the so-called Aguilar standard.” State v. Gibson, 32 N.C. 1983This is sufficient to meet the so-called Aguilar standard.” State v. Gibson, 32 N.C.	1	1
United States v. Ventrescagreen scotus · 1965 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975 2 sentences 1975We believe that this statement finds support in the emphasized portion of the Aguilar test quoted above and in the case of United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108 , 85 S.Ct. 741, 746 , 13 L.Ed. 2d 684, 689 (1965), wherein its was stated that: “ . . . [T]he Fourth Amendment’s commands, like all constitutional requirements, are practical and not abstract. . . . [Affidavits for search warrants . . . must be tested and interpreted by magistrates and courts in a common sense and realistic fashion. . . . 1975We believe that this statement finds support in the emphasized portion of the Aguilar test quoted above and in the case of United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108 , 85 S.Ct. 741, 746 , 13 L.Ed. 2d 684, 689 (1965), wherein its was stated that: “ . . . [T]he Fourth Amendment’s commands, like all constitutional requirements, are practical and not abstract. . . . [Affidavits for search warrants . . . must be tested and interpreted by magistrates and courts in a common sense and realistic fashion. . . .	1	1
Johnson v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1948 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1974–1974 1 sentence 1974Aguilar is relevant at this stage of the inquiry as well because the tests it establishes were designed to implement the long-standing.principle that probable cause must be determined by a‘neutral and detached magistrate,’ and not by ‘the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.’ Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14 (1948).	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 (6)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. McLeod green ncctapp · 1978 2 sentences 1982Therefore, with cognizance of the Aguilar test, “[w]e find the personal observations of the police officer as set forth in the affidavit in the case sub judice [sufficient] to meet the first ‘prong’ of the test.” Id. 1982Therefore, with cognizance of the Aguilar test, “[w]e find the personal observations of the police officer as set forth in the affidavit in the case sub judice [sufficient] to meet the first ‘prong’ of the test.” Id.	2	1979–1982
State v. Caldwell neutral ncctapp · 1981 2 sentences 1983Such an affidavit will satisfy the Aguilar test set out above as long as “it sets out facts upon which the magistrate could determine the reliability of both the unnamed informant and the named informant. . . .” Id. at 6, 279 S.E. 2d at 856 . 1983Such an affidavit will satisfy the Aguilar test set out above as long as “it sets out facts upon which the magistrate could determine the reliability of both the unnamed informant and the named informant. . . .” Id. at 6, 279 S.E. 2d at 856 .	1	1983–1983
State v. Harris green ncctapp · 1979 2 sentences 1982Even were the second prong of the Aguilar test applicable here, Smith’s statement that he could procure LSD for the officers and his acquisition of the drug amounted to an admission against penal interest, United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573 , 29 L.Ed. 2d 723 , 91 S.Ct. 2075 (1971); State v. Harris, 43 N.C. 1982Even were the second prong of the Aguilar test applicable here, Smith’s statement that he could procure LSD for the officers and his acquisition of the drug amounted to an admission against penal interest, United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573 , 29 L.Ed. 2d 723 , 91 S.Ct. 2075 (1971); State v. Harris, 43 N.C.	1	1982–1982
State v. Tickle neutral ncctapp · 1978 2 sentences 1982App. 184 , 258 S.E. 2d 415 (1979); State v. Tickle, 37 N.C. 1982App. 184 , 258 S.E. 2d 415 (1979); State v. Tickle, 37 N.C.	1	1982–1982
State v. Caldwell green ncctapp · 1975 2 sentences 1977State v. Ellington, 284 N.C. 198 , 200 S.E. 2d 177 (1973); State v. Caldwell, 25 N.C. 1977State v. Ellington, 284 N.C. 198 , 200 S.E. 2d 177 (1973); State v. Caldwell, 25 N.C.	1	1977–1977
State v. Ellington green nc · 1973 2 sentences 1977State v. Ellington, 284 N.C. 198 , 200 S.E. 2d 177 (1973); State v. Caldwell, 25 N.C. 1977State v. Ellington, 284 N.C. 198 , 200 S.E. 2d 177 (1973); State v. Caldwell, 25 N.C.	1	1977–1977

Where else courts name it

TX 59 (1969–2021) CA 42 (1969–2026) IL 38 (1970–2024) MA 31 (1975–2023) NY 18 (1975–1994) PA 15 (1972–1983) MN 15 (1977–2024) WI 11 (1972–2009) WA 8 (1973–2017) AZ 8 (1972–2017) OH 8 (1974–2018) AL 8 (1979–1993) HI 7 (1973–2020) LA 7 (1980–1985) NC 7 (1974–1983) CT 6 (1975–1990) SD 6 (1975–2006) MI 6 (1977–1986) FL 5 (1981–2018) MS 5 (1972–2002) NM 4 (1978–2025) OR 4 (1970–1974) VA 4 (1972–2024) DC 3 (1977–1978) AK 3 (1975–1985) MO 3 (1976–1990) IA 3 (1976–1982) AR 3 (1979–1986) TN 2 (1982–2005) RI 2 (1975–1997) MD 2 (1973–1974) NE 2 (1972–1981) ID 2 (1979–1980) IN 2 (2009–2013) NJ 2 (1991–2022)

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