NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-974 (2026)

Exclusion or suppression of unlawfully obtained evidence

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 15A CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Upon timely motion, evidence must be suppressed if:

(1) Its exclusion is required by the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of North Carolina; or

(2) It is obtained as a result of a substantial violation of the provisions of this Chapter. In determining whether a violation is substantial, the court must consider all the circumstances, including:

a. The importance of the particular interest violated;

b. The extent of the deviation from lawful conduct;

c. The extent to which the violation was willful;

d. The extent to which exclusion will tend to deter future violations of this Chapter.

Evidence shall not be suppressed under this subdivision if the person committing the violation of the provision or provisions under this Chapter acted under the objectively reasonable, good faith belief that the actions were lawful.

(b) The court, in making a determination whether or not evidence shall be suppressed under this section, shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law which shall be included in the record, pursuant to G.S. 15A-977(f). (1973, c. 1286, s. 1; 2011-6, s. 1.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 159 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: State v. Carter, 370 S.E.2d 553 (N.C. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Carter, 370 S.E.2d 553 (N.C. 1988). · cites it 22× “[4] The amended statute was repealed in 1969 and replaced, effective 1975, by N.C.G.S. § 15A-974. Section 15A-974 provides in pertinent part that "[u]pon timely motion, evidence must be suppressed if: (1) Its exclusion is required by the Constitution of the United States or the…”

State v. Pearson, 566 S.E.2d 50 (N.C. 2002). · cites it 21× “The extent to which exclusion will tend to deter future violations of this Chapter.”

State v. Heien, 737 S.E.2d 351 (N.C. 2012). · cites it 12× “This decision is not merely unnecessary here; it is premature in light of the recent amendment to N.C.G.S. § 15A-974. The flaws in the majority’s opinion are perhaps most apparent in its single statement that “[p]olice officers should be entitled to interpret our motor vehicle…”

State v. Hyleman, 379 S.E.2d 830 (N.C. 1989). · cites it 24× “N.C.G.S. § 15A-974 provides in part: Upon timely motion, evidence must be suppressed if: .”

State v. Richardson, 245 S.E.2d 754 (N.C. 1978). · cites it 10× “15A-501 constitutes a “substantial violation” of the provisions of Chapter 15A, that his confession was obtained as a result of this violation, and accordingly should have been suppressed pursuant to G.S. 15A-974. G.S. 15A-974 provides: “Upon timely motion, evidence must be…”

State v. Mercer, 343 S.E.2d 885 (N.C. 1986). · cites it 9× “Defendant first assigns as error the trial court’s denial of his pretrial “motion to suppress” the introduction of the wedding ring and digital watch pursuant to N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-974 and -977. 1 During the hearing upon defendant’s motion, defense counsel stated as grounds for…”

State v. Bartlett, 776 S.E.2d 672 (N.C. 2015). · cites it 6× “Accordingly, the oral ruling by Judge Jones did not comply with N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-974 and 15A-977. *313 Because the oral ruling was inadequate, we now consider whether Judge Hudson had the authority to resolve the evidentiary conflict in his written order even though he did not…”

State v. Downey, 791 S.E.2d 257 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 23× “Defendant maintains his motion to suppress the evidence should have been granted under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-974, which requires suppression if, inter alia , the evidence "is obtained as a result of a substantial violation of the provisions of [Chapter 15A of our General…”

State v. Knight, 459 S.E.2d 481 (N.C. 1995). · cites it 11× “G.S. §§ 15A-251 and 15A-401(e)(l) and (2).”

State v. Simpson, 357 S.E.2d 332 (N.C. 1987). · cites it 12× “Further, any violation of Chapter 15A was not such "a substantial violation" as to require suppression of the defendant's confession under N.C.G.S. § 15A-974(2). See State v. Reynolds, 298 N.”

State v. Payne, 402 S.E.2d 582 (N.C. 1991). · cites it 6× “N.C.G.S. § 15A-974 provides that upon timely motion, evidence must be suppressed if it “is obtained as a result of a substantial violation of the provisions of this Chapter.”

State v. Sturgill, 469 S.E.2d 557 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 9× “Though § 15A-1021(b) provides no express remedy, its statutory partner, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-974 (1988) does. Section 15A-974 creates a decisive remedy for violations of § 15A-1021(b), and in pertinent part, provides as follows: § 15A-974.”

Show all 159 citing cases →

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-974(1) — 9 cases

State v. Carter, 370 S.E.2d 553 (N.C. 1988). “[4] The amended statute was repealed in 1969 and replaced, effective 1975, by N.C.G.S. § 15A-974. Section 15A-974 provides in pertinent part that "[u]pon timely motion, evidence must be suppressed if: (1) Its exclusion is required by the Constitution of the United States or the…”

State v. Pearson, 551 S.E.2d 471 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001).

State v. Richardson, 245 S.E.2d 754 (N.C. 1978). “15A-501 constitutes a “substantial violation” of the provisions of Chapter 15A, that his confession was obtained as a result of this violation, and accordingly should have been suppressed pursuant to G.S. 15A-974. G.S. 15A-974 provides: “Upon timely motion, evidence must be…”

State v. Wilson, 235 S.E.2d 219 (N.C. 1977).

State v. Joyner, 282 S.E.2d 520 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981).

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-974(2) — 34 cases

State v. Pearson, 566 S.E.2d 50 (N.C. 2002). “The extent to which exclusion will tend to deter future violations of this Chapter.”

State v. Hyleman, 379 S.E.2d 830 (N.C. 1989). “N.C.G.S. § 15A-974 provides in part: Upon timely motion, evidence must be suppressed if: .”

State v. Simpson, 357 S.E.2d 332 (N.C. 1987). “Further, any violation of Chapter 15A was not such "a substantial violation" as to require suppression of the defendant's confession under N.C.G.S. § 15A-974(2). See State v. Reynolds, 298 N.”

State v. Knight, 459 S.E.2d 481 (N.C. 1995). “G.S. §§ 15A-251 and 15A-401(e)(l) and (2).”

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-974(2)(b) — 1 case

State v. Franklin, 304 S.E.2d 579 (N.C. 1983).

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-974(2)(d) — 1 case

State v. Sturgill, 469 S.E.2d 557 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996). “Though § 15A-1021(b) provides no express remedy, its statutory partner, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-974 (1988) does. Section 15A-974 creates a decisive remedy for violations of § 15A-1021(b), and in pertinent part, provides as follows: § 15A-974.”

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-974(a) — 6 cases

State v. Portillo, 787 S.E.2d 822 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016).

State v. Dobbins, 293 S.E.2d 162 (N.C. 1982).

State v. Steele (N.C. Ct. App. 2021).

State v. Jordan (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-974(a)(1) — 11 cases

State v. Miller, 814 S.E.2d 81 (N.C. 2018).

State v. White, 753 S.E.2d 698 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014).

State v. Smith, 789 S.E.2d 873 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016).

State v. Pigford, 789 S.E.2d 857 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016).

State v. Rivera, 826 S.E.2d 511 (N.C. Ct. App. 2019).

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-974(a)(2) — 16 cases

State v. Downey, 791 S.E.2d 257 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016). “Defendant maintains his motion to suppress the evidence should have been granted under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-974, which requires suppression if, inter alia , the evidence "is obtained as a result of a substantial violation of the provisions of [Chapter 15A of our General…”

State v. Heien, 737 S.E.2d 351 (N.C. 2012). “This decision is not merely unnecessary here; it is premature in light of the recent amendment to N.C.G.S. § 15A-974. The flaws in the majority’s opinion are perhaps most apparent in its single statement that “[p]olice officers should be entitled to interpret our motor vehicle…”

State v. Smith, 789 S.E.2d 873 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016).

State v. STOWES, 727 S.E.2d 351 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012).

State v. Elder, 753 S.E.2d 504 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014).

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-974(a)(l) — 2 cases

State v. Reavis, 700 S.E.2d 33 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010).

State v. Wilson, 736 S.E.2d 614 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013).

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-974(b) — 9 cases

State v. Bartlett, 776 S.E.2d 672 (N.C. 2015). “Accordingly, the oral ruling by Judge Jones did not comply with N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-974 and 15A-977. *313 Because the oral ruling was inadequate, we now consider whether Judge Hudson had the authority to resolve the evidentiary conflict in his written order even though he did not…”

State v. Rayfield, 752 S.E.2d 745 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014).

State v. Johnson (N.C. 2021).

State v. Lester (N.C. Ct. App. 2025).

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.