State v. Ervin
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
ARNOLD, Judge.
I
We first consider defendant Ervin’s contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence taken from him and from the vehicle by the officers. Ervin had no standing to contest the search of the automobile. He was in the position of defendant Campbell in State v. McPeak, 243 N.C. 243, 90 S.E. 2d 501 (1955), where the court said: “The Oldsmobile belonged to McPeak [who was driving]: Campbell was a passenger or guest therein. Campbell’s rights were not invaded by the search of McPeak’s car, and he had no legal right to object thereto.” Id. at 246, 90…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Chimel v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- In re SkolnickSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- State v. AllenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
- State v. SladeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- State v. McPeakSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- United States v. HubbardCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1980
- State v. MettrickCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
- State v. CookCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
- United States v. Mary Sue Hubbard, United States of America v. Mary Sue Hubbard Church of Scientology of California, Church of Scientology of California v. United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1981
- State v. MelvinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.