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.
7 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2021 2 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. Gainesgreen2 sentences2012“This Court has consistently held that the rule of Miranda applies only where a defendant is subjected to custodial interrogation.” State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 661 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 404 (1997). 2012“This Court has consistently held that the rule of Miranda applies only where a defendant is subjected to custodial interrogation.” State v. Gaines, 345 N.C. 647, 661 , 483 S.E.2d 396, 404 (1997). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Helmsgreen1 sentence2011App. at-, 687 S.E.2d at 308-09 ; see also State v. Helms, 348 N.C. 578, 581 , 504 S.E.2d 293, 295 (1998) (holding that it was impermissible to allow *591 a lay witness to testify regarding the results of an HGN test, a field sobriety test, when the reliability of the test was not sufficiently established). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Helmsgreen1 sentence2011App. at-, 687 S.E.2d at 308-09 ; see also State v. Helms, 348 N.C. 578, 581 , 504 S.E.2d 293, 295 (1998) (holding that it was impermissible to allow *591 a lay witness to testify regarding the results of an HGN test, a field sobriety test, when the reliability of the test was not sufficiently established). | 1 | 1 |
Frances Rogala v. District of Columbia and Ephriam Williams, Officer, Badge 4357green2 sentences2005In the third case cited by the majority here, Rogala v. D.C., 161 F.3d 44, 53 (D.C.Cir.1998), the officer who ordered a passenger to remain in a vehicle during a traffic stop did so explicitly on the grounds that "she was blocking traffic and interfering with the field sobriety test that [the officer] was conducting...." The court therefore "conclude[d] that in the circumstances presented, it follows ... that a police officer has the power to reasonably control the situation by requiring a passenger to remain in a vehicle during a traffic stop, particularly where, as here, the officer is alone 2005In the third case cited by the majority here, Rogala v. D.C., 161 F.3d 44, 53 (D.C.Cir.1998), the officer who ordered a passenger to remain in a vehicle during a traffic stop did so explicitly on the grounds that "she was blocking traffic and interfering with the field sobriety test that [the officer] was conducting...." The court therefore "conclude[d] that in the circumstances presented, it follows ... that a police officer has the power to reasonably control the situation by requiring a passenger to remain in a vehicle during a traffic stop, particularly where, as here, the officer is alone | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Mark
green
2 sentences2021In Mark, we held “the State presented sufficient evidence that [the] defendant was impaired” based on a law enforcement officer’s “[testimony] that he formed an opinion that [the] defendant was appreciably impaired after conducting a field sobriety test.” Id. 2021In Mark, we held “the State presented sufficient evidence that [the] defendant was impaired” based on a law enforcement officer’s “[testimony] that he formed an opinion that [the] defendant was appreciably impaired after conducting a field sobriety test.” Id. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Meadows
green
1 sentence2011App. at-, 687 S.E.2d at 308-09 ; see also State v. Helms, 348 N.C. 578, 581 , 504 S.E.2d 293, 295 (1998) (holding that it was impermissible to allow *591 a lay witness to testify regarding the results of an HGN test, a field sobriety test, when the reliability of the test was not sufficiently established). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Funchess
green
1 sentence2005"To convict a person of the crime of driving with a revoked license, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was on notice that his driver's license was revoked." State v. Funchess, 141 N.C. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.