7 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2025 1 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 sentences2025The federal good faith exception exists because the Supreme Court held the federal exclusionary rule is merely “a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 906 . 2010In United States v. Leon, the United States Supreme Court approved an exception to the federal exclusionary rule: “evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment by officers acting in objectively reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate need not be excluded, as a matter of federal law.” 468 U.S. 897, 927 , 82 L. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Reamsgreen1 sentence2025In State v. Reams, 277 N.C. 391, 395 (1970), this Court reiterated that “[e]vidence obtained by unreasonable search and seizure is inadmissible,” citing the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Article I, Section 15, N.C.G.S. § 15-27, and Mapp. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences1993State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709, 723 , 370 S.E.2d 553, 561 (1988). 1993State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709, 723 , 370 S.E.2d 553, 561 (1988). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mapp v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2025Supp. 1951)).6 Ten years later, in Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court incorporated the federal exclusionary rule into the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, “hold[ing] that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the [Federal] Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court.” 367 U.S. 643 , 6 In 1957, the General Assembly also enacted section 15-27.1, which provided: The provision of this Article shall apply to search warrants issued for any purpose including those issued pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 18-13. 1977If the arrest were unconstitutional, then the evidence should not have been admitted under the federal exclusionary rule imposed upon the states in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed. 2d 1081 (1961), and recognized by G.S. 15A-974(1). | 2 | 1977–2025 |
State v. Colson
green
2 sentences2025Id. at 305–06, 163 S.E.2d at 383–84 (discussing Mapp, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S. Ct. 1684 ). 2025Id. at 305–06, 163 S.E.2d at 383–84 (discussing Mapp, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S. Ct. 1684 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Massachusetts v. Sheppard
green
2 sentences1988This Court ought not, on the basis of state constitutional law, reject the good faith exception to the federal exclusionary rule enunciated in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 , and Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 , 104 S.Ct. 3424 , 82 L.Ed.2d 737 (1984). 1988This Court ought not, on the basis of state constitutional law, reject the good faith exception to the federal exclusionary rule enunciated in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 , and Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981 , 104 S.Ct. 3424 , 82 L.Ed.2d 737 (1984). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Hall
green
2 sentences1975He contends that his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States were violated in that this evidence obtained by the officers was without the authorization of a valid search warrant and that evidence obtained in such a manner is incompetent under G.S. 15-27, the federal exclusionary rule, and federal and state decisions dealing with non-consensual searches conducted without search warrants. *621 To support this position, defendant cites State v. Hall, 264 N.C. 559 , 142 S.E. 2d 177 (1965). 1975He contends that his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States were violated in that this evidence obtained by the officers was without the authorization of a valid search warrant and that evidence obtained in such a manner is incompetent under G.S. 15-27, the federal exclusionary rule, and federal and state decisions dealing with non-consensual searches conducted without search warrants. *621 To support this position, defendant cites State v. Hall, 264 N.C. 559 , 142 S.E. 2d 177 (1965). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
State v. Stevens
neutral
2 sentences1968State v. Coffey, 255 N.C. 293 , 121 S.E. 2d 736 ; State v. Stevens, 264 N.C. 737 , 142 S.E. 2d 588 . 1968State v. Coffey, 255 N.C. 293 , 121 S.E. 2d 736 ; State v. Stevens, 264 N.C. 737 , 142 S.E. 2d 588 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
State v. Coffey
green
2 sentences1968State v. Coffey, 255 N.C. 293 , 121 S.E. 2d 736 ; State v. Stevens, 264 N.C. 737 , 142 S.E. 2d 588 . 1968State v. Coffey, 255 N.C. 293 , 121 S.E. 2d 736 ; State v. Stevens, 264 N.C. 737 , 142 S.E. 2d 588 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.