Legal Opinion

State v. Russell

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided February 7, 1989No. 8828SC444PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARNOLD, Judge.

Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the warrantless seizure of his automobile. Absent consent, or some form of exigent circumstances, a warrant based on probable cause is required for a valid search and/or seizure under the Fourth Amendment. United States Constitution, Fourth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971), held that no exigent circumstances justified the failure of the police to obtain a warrant for the seizure and search of an automobile parked in…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Hill v. LockhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  4. Neil v. BiggersSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  5. Rhode Island v. InnisSupreme Court of the United States · 1980

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. RossiterOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
  2. State v. TinneyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2013
  3. United States v. RithDistrict Court, D. Utah · 1997
  4. State v. CummingsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008
  5. State v. CarmonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003

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

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

Powered by the Exa API