State v. Cummings
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
WYNN, Judge.
Miranda warnings “are inapplicable to searches and seizures.” 1 Here, the defendant argues that a search of his vehicle was unconstitutional because he consented to the search after he invoked his right to consult with an attorney. Because Miranda warnings are not required for a search to be valid and any error in admitting the fruits of the search was harmless, we affirm.
At trial, the State presented evidence that tended to show that on 15 December 2003, Defendant Fannton D. Cummings, Robert Blair, Darius Rutledge, and Adrian Watkins participated in the robbery of a residence…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- United States v. Maurice McCurdyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1994
- State v. DaughtrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1995
- State v. SoyarsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. CottrellCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2014
- State v. McMillanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011
- State v. HannahCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2025
- State v. JordanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2022
- State v. JordanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2022