State v. Smith
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
ARNOLD, Judge.
The defendant argues that evidence of the methamphetamine should have been suppressed because the box which contained it was not properly seized. His contention is that since Detective *602Campbell did not discover the methamphetamine until a later inventory of the box, he did not know the box contained contraband and therefore had no reason to seize it. Detective Campbell’s un-contradicted testimony is that he saw in the open box “various paraphernalia such as pipes which contained residue” and “a glass bottle which contained seeds, marijuana seeds.” Thus, under our holding in…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. LocklearSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
- State v. ZimmermanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1974
- State v. ZimmermanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
- State v. LocklearCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. FloweCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1992
- State v. RollinsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1998