N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 15
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15-207 (2026)

Records treated as privileged information

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 15 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

All information and data obtained in the discharge of official duty by any probation officer shall be privileged information, shall not be receivable as evidence in any court, and shall not be disclosed directly or indirectly to any other than the judge or to others entitled under this Article to receive reports, unless and until otherwise ordered by a judge of the court or the Secretary of Adult Correction. (1937, c. 132, s. 11; 1973, c. 1262, s. 10; 2011-145, s. 19.1(i); 2023-121, s. 16(d).)

 

§ 15-208.  Repealed by Session Laws 1975, c. 138.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2022 · leading case: State v. Russell, 376 S.E.2d 458 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Russell, 376 S.E.2d 458 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 12× “§ 15-207 states that; All information and data obtained in the discharge of official duty by any probation officer shall be privileged information, shall not be receivable as evidence in any court, and shall not be disclosed directly or indirectly to any other than the judge or…”
State v. Craft, 232 S.E.2d 282 (N.C. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “” Even were they so construed, the denial of the motion to suppress constitutes an order by a judge, as required by G.”
State v. Gallion (N.C. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 12× “Motion to Suppress Evidence of Defendant’s Electronic Monitoring Data ¶ 49 In his second argument, Defendant contends the trial court erred in refusing to suppress electronic monitoring data and allowing the State to introduce the data at trial because DPS released Defendant’s…”
State v. Gallion (N.C. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 12× “Motion to Suppress Evidence of Defendant’s Electronic Monitoring Data ¶ 49 In his second argument, Defendant contends the trial court erred in refusing to suppress electronic monitoring data and allowing the State to introduce the data at trial because DPS released Defendant’s…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.