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 2 courts 2010–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Chadwickgreen2 sentences2018App. 236 , 681 S.E.2d 492 (2009), which held that a defendant's consent to search is invalid when it is tainted by the illegality of an extended detention. *338 Under the search incident to arrest exception, consent to search is not required because "[a]n officer may conduct a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest." State v. Chadwick , 149 N.C. 2018Under the search incident to arrest exception, consent to search is not required because “[a]n officer may conduct a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest.” State v. Chadwick, 149 N.C. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Brooksgreen1 sentence2023This Court has recognized that “a search may be made before an actual arrest and still be justified as a search incident to arrest[ ] if . . . the arrest is made contemporaneously with the search.” State v. Brooks, 337 N.C. 132, 145 (1994) (citing Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (1980)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Terrellgreen2 sentences2019See Terrell , 810 S.E.2d at 729 ("While this is a private-search exception case, not a search-incident-to-arrest exception case, Riley 's guidance that the nature of an electronic device greatly increases privacy implications holds just as true ...."). 2019See Terrell, 810 S.E.2d at 729 (“While this is a private-search exception case, not a search-incident-to-arrest exception case, Riley’s guidance that the nature of an electronic device greatly increases privacy implications holds just as true . . . .”). -20- STATE V. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Aron Lichtenbergergreen2 sentences2018Cf. United States v. Lichtenberger, 786 F.3d 478, 487 (6th Cir. 2015) (relying on Riley’s - 21 - STATE V. 2018Cf. United States v. Lichtenberger , 786 F.3d 478 , 487 (6th Cir. 2015) (relying on Riley 's guidance in applying the private-search doctrine to a laptop search), aff'g , 19 F.Supp.3d 753 (N.D. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Arizona v. Gant
green
2 sentences2023In fact, “[i]f there is no possibility that an arrestee could reach into the area that law enforcement officers seek to search, both justifications for the search-incident-to-arrest exception are absent and the rule does not apply.” Id. 2010The broad application of this doctrine was recently limited by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. -, 173 L. | 2 | 2010–2023 |
Riley v. Cal. United States
green
2 sentences2018In reaching this decision, we are guided by the substantial privacy concerns implicated in searches of digital data that the United States Supreme Court expressed in Riley v. California , --- U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 2473 , 2485, 189 L.Ed. 2d 430 (2014) (declining to extend the search-incident-to-arrest exception to police searches of digital data on cell phones). 2018In reaching this decision, we are guided by the substantial privacy concerns implicated in searches of digital data that the United States Supreme Court expressed in Riley v. California , --- U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 2473 , 2485, 189 L.Ed. 2d 430 (2014) (declining to extend the search-incident-to-arrest exception to police searches of digital data on cell phones). | 2 | 2017–2018 |
Rawlings v. Kentucky
green
1 sentence2023This Court has recognized that “a search may be made before an actual arrest and still be justified as a search incident to arrest[ ] if . . . the arrest is made contemporaneously with the search.” State v. Brooks, 337 N.C. 132, 145 (1994) (citing Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (1980)). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
United States v. Lichtenberger
green
1 sentence2018Cf. United States v. Lichtenberger , 786 F.3d 478 , 487 (6th Cir. 2015) (relying on Riley 's guidance in applying the private-search doctrine to a laptop search), aff'g , 19 F.Supp.3d 753 (N.D. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Jackson
green
1 sentence2018App. 236 , 681 S.E.2d 492 (2009), which held that a defendant's consent to search is invalid when it is tainted by the illegality of an extended detention. *338 Under the search incident to arrest exception, consent to search is not required because "[a]n officer may conduct a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest." State v. Chadwick , 149 N.C. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.