State v. Lindquist
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
HEDRICK, Judge.
The defendant first contends that “the Court committed error in allowing into evidence the results of the search of the defendant’s automobile by Officer Pilgreen.”
“The owner of the premises may consent to a search thereof and thus waive the necessity of a valid search warrant so as to render the evidence obtained in the search competent. State v. Colson, supra, (274 N.C. 295, 163 S.E. 2d 376, cert. den. 393 U.S. 1087); State v. Moore, supra, (240 N.C. 749, 83 S.E. 2d 912). To have such effect, the consent of the owner must be freely and intelligently given without coercion,…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- State v. HarveySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- State v. VestalSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- State v. ColsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
- State v. BlackwellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. RosserCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
- State v. AaronCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976
- State v. BrownCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
- State v. StittCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973