Legal Opinion

State v. Lindquist

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided May 24, 1972No. 721SC314PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. State v. HarveySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  3. State v. VestalSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  4. State v. ColsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  5. State v. BlackwellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. RosserCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  2. State v. AaronCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976
  3. State v. BrownCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  4. State v. StittCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API