(a) It shall be the duty of the law-enforcement officers of the State and of each county, city, or other municipality to see that the provisions of this Article are enforced within their respective jurisdictions, and any such officer shall have the power to arrest on sight or upon warrant any person found violating the provisions of this Article. Such officers within their respective jurisdictions shall have the power to stop any motor vehicle upon the highways of the State for the purpose of determining whether the same is being operated in violation of any of the provisions of this Article. Provided, that when any county, city, or other municipal law-enforcement officer operating a motor vehicle overtakes another vehicle on the highways of the State, outside of the corporate limits of cities and towns, for the purpose of stopping the same or apprehending the driver thereof, for a violation of any of the provisions of this Article, he shall, before stopping such other vehicle, sound a siren or activate a special light, bell, horn, or exhaust whistle approved for law-enforcement vehicles under the provisions of G.S. 20-125(b).
(b) In addition to other duties and powers heretofore existing, all law-enforcement officers charged with the duty of enforcing the motor vehicle laws are authorized to issue warning tickets to motorists for conduct constituting a potential hazard to the motoring public which does not amount to a definite, clear-cut, substantial violation of the motor vehicle laws. Each warning ticket issued shall contain information necessary to identify the offender, and shall be signed by the issuing officer. A copy of each warning ticket issued shall be delivered to the offender. Information from issued warning tickets shall be made available to the Drivers License Section of the Division of Motor Vehicles in a manner approved by the Commissioner but shall not be filed with or in any manner become a part of the offender's driving record. Warning tickets issued as well as the fact of issuance shall be privileged information and available only to authorized personnel of the Division for statistical and analytical purposes. (1937, c. 407, s. 143; 1961, c. 793; 1965, cc. 537, 999; 1975, c. 716, s. 5; 1998-149, s. 9.2.)
Article 3A.
Safety and Emissions Inspection Program.
Part 1. Safe Use of Streets and Highways.
§ 20-183.1: Repealed by Session Laws 1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 754, s. 3.
Part 2. Safety and Emissions Inspections of Certain Vehicles.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
25
cases, 1954–2014 · leading case:
State v. McClendon, 517 S.E.2d 128 (N.C. 1999).
State v. McClendon, 517 S.E.2d 128 (N.C. 1999).
· cites it 3× “§ 15A-302(b) (1997); N.C.G.S. § 20-183(b) (Supp. 1998). We therefore conclude that the officers in this case were justified in stopping defendant’s vehicle.”
State v. Mobley, 83 S.E.2d 100 (N.C. 1954).
· cites it 3× “For example, G.S. § 20-183 confers on law enforcement officers power to stop any motor vehicle for the purpose of determining whether it is being operated in violation of any provision of the Motor Vehicle Act, and empowers such officers "to arrest on sight" any person found…”
State v. Eason, 86 S.E.2d 774 (N.C. 1955).
· cites it 2× “Did Whitehurst have authority to stop and arrest defendant? If so, was defendant aware of the fact that the man attempting to stop him was an officer? G.S. 20-183 provides: “Duties and powers of law enforcement officers.”
Keziah v. Bostic, 452 F. Supp. 912 (W.D.N.C. 1978).
· cites it 6× “G.S. § 20-183(a) patrolmen are authorized “.”
State v. Douglas, 277 S.E.2d 467 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “2d 643, 645 (1979); G.S. 20-183(a). Noting that defendant did not appeal from the trial court's finding of fact at the conclusion of the voir dire that Galliher was informed of the break-in at Conner Mobile Home within a "very short time" of the stop, we uphold the trial court's…”
State v. Blackwelder, 238 S.E.2d 190 (N.C. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 2× “” There is no evidence that Agent Mills stopped the vehicle operated by defendant for the purpose of determining if he had violated a motor vehicle statute.”
State v. Thompson, 246 S.E.2d 827 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “On voir dire, Officer Wolak testified that he and Lee approached the van in order to identify the occupants, because *834 it was late at night and break-ins had been reported in the vicinity earlier that evening. But the record does not disclose the time of the break-ins, the…”
State v. Braxton, 368 S.E.2d 56 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988).
“The record does not reveal whether this was to be a verbal warning or whether the officer intended to issue a formal warning ticket authorized by G.”
State v. Bridges, 239 S.E.2d 856 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978).
“The circumstances include those created by the mobile and vicious criminal, which circumstances require immediate police action short of arrest.”
State v. Jefferies, 193 S.E.2d 388 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).
“Under the provisions of G.S. 20-183 and G.S. 15-41(1) a North Carolina Highway Patrolman has authority to arrest *198 without a warrant when the officer has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a misdemeanor in the officer’s presence.”
In re Twin Cnty. Motorsports, Inc., 749 S.E.2d 474 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 12× “Neil Ambrose (“Inspector Ambrose”) of the Bureau of License and Theft of the DMV went to the place of business of Twin County to investigate a report that the business was conducting state inspections without a licensed mechanic in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-183…”
Lowe v. Dep't of Motor Vehs., 93 S.E.2d 448 (N.C. 1956).
“It is true that in such case, as appellant contends, the patrolman was clothed with legal power to arrest plaintiff for the violation of G.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-183(a): 9 cases
Keziah v. Bostic, 452 F. Supp. 912 (W.D.N.C. 1978).
“G.S. § 20-183(a) patrolmen are authorized “.”
State v. Douglas, 277 S.E.2d 467 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981).
“2d 643, 645 (1979); G.S. 20-183(a). Noting that defendant did not appeal from the trial court's finding of fact at the conclusion of the voir dire that Galliher was informed of the break-in at Conner Mobile Home within a "very short time" of the stop, we uphold the trial court's…”
State v. Thompson, 246 S.E.2d 827 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978).
“On voir dire, Officer Wolak testified that he and Lee approached the van in order to identify the occupants, because *834 it was late at night and break-ins had been reported in the vicinity earlier that evening. But the record does not disclose the time of the break-ins, the…”
State v. Braxton, 368 S.E.2d 56 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988).
“The record does not reveal whether this was to be a verbal warning or whether the officer intended to issue a formal warning ticket authorized by G.”
State v. Bridges, 239 S.E.2d 856 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978).
“The circumstances include those created by the mobile and vicious criminal, which circumstances require immediate police action short of arrest.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-183(b): 3 cases
State v. McClendon, 517 S.E.2d 128 (N.C. 1999).
“§ 15A-302(b) (1997); N.C.G.S. § 20-183(b) (Supp. 1998). We therefore conclude that the officers in this case were justified in stopping defendant’s vehicle.”
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.