Any person operating or in charge of a motor vehicle, when requested by an officer in uniform, or, in the event of accident in which the vehicle which he is operating or in charge of shall be involved, when requested by any other person, who shall refuse to write his name for the purpose of identification or to give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of such vehicle, or who shall give a false name or address, or who shall refuse, on demand of such officer or such other person, to produce his license and exhibit same to such officer or such other person for the purpose of examination, or who shall refuse to surrender his license on demand of the Division, or fail to produce same when requested by a court of this State, shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. Pickup notices for drivers' licenses or revocation or suspension of license notices and orders or demands issued by the Division for the surrender of such licenses may be served and executed by patrolmen or other peace officers or may be served in accordance with G.S. 20-48. Patrolmen and peace officers, while serving and executing such notices, orders and demands, shall have all the power and authority possessed by peace officers when serving the executing warrants charging violations of the criminal laws of the State. (1935, c. 52, s. 23; 1949, c. 583, s. 7; 1975, c. 716, s. 5; 1979, c. 667, s. 25; 1981, c. 938, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 323; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1957–2023 · leading case:
State v. Simpkins, 826 S.E.2d 845 (N.C. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Simpkins, 826 S.E.2d 845 (N.C. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 4× “Defendant was tried by a jury and convicted of resisting a public officer and failing to exhibit/surrender his license. The trial court entered judgments, and defendant appeals.”
Keziah v. Bostic, 452 F. Supp. 912 (W.D.N.C. 1978).
· cites it 5× “It is not material that petitioner’s refusal to display his license constituted an independent violation of N.C.G.S. § 20-29. Since the initial stop and demand themselves were illegal, the officer could not invoke § 20-29 to bootstrap himself into a legal arrest.”
State v. Johnston, 446 S.E.2d 135 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994).
“See also G.S. 20-29. Accordingly, Trooper Ashby had sufficient probable cause at that time to place defendant under arrest.”
State v. Phillips, 568 S.E.2d 300 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “§ 20-140 (b) (2001), and when stopped, defendant refused to produce his driver’s license in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-29 (2001). Both of these offenses are Class 2 misdemeanors.”
State v. Wall, 760 S.E.2d 386 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014).
“” On 6 December 2012, a magistrate’s order charged defendant with resisting a public officer, § 14-223, and giving fictitious information to a public officer, § 20-29, for the 18 September 2012 incident.”
State v. Cornelius, 410 S.E.2d 504 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Here, the officer made a lawful arrest pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 20-29 (1989) and 20-28(b) (1989) after a lawful investigatory stop.”
State v. Hudson, 407 S.E.2d 583 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991).
“” G.S. 20-29. Defendant stated that he did not have a driver’s license.”
State v. Thompson, 868 S.E.2d 157 (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 27× “The first step in determining a statute’s purpose is to examine the statute’s plain language. Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for judicial construction and the courts must construe the statute using its plain meaning.”
State v. Thompson, 868 S.E.2d 157 (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 27× “The first step in determining a statute’s purpose is to examine the statute’s plain language. Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for judicial construction and the courts must construe the statute using its plain meaning.”
State v. Keziah, 210 S.E.2d 436 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 2× “We think the present case is distinguishable in that here the duty the officer was allegedly performing was that of checking the defendant’s driver’s license pursuant to G.S. 20-29 and G.S. 20-183 (a). While there may be little or no distinction between resisting an officer by…”
State v. Simpkins, No. 18-725 (N.C. Ct. App. May 7, 2019).
· cites it 2× “Defendant was tried by a jury and convicted of resisting a public officer and failing to exhibit/surrender his license. The trial court entered judgments, and defendant appeals.”
Randall v. Metzger, No. 1:23-cv-00043 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 14, 2023).
“§ 20-29 ; driving while license revoked in violation of N.”
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.