149 N.C. App. 734 - State v. Nance’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Exigent circumstances exist when there is "[a] situation that demands unusual or immediate action and that may allow people to circumvent usual procedures [.]" Black's Law Dictionary 236 (7th ed.1999); see also Robert L. Farb, Arrest, Search, and Investigation in North Carolina 49 (2d ed.1992) (stating that exigent circumstances exist when immediate action is necessary). "If the circumstances of a particular case render impracticable a delay to obtain a warrant, a warrantless search on probable cause is permissible...." State v. Allison, 298 N.C. 135 , 141, 257 S.E.2d 417 , 421 (1979). The United States Supreme Court has approved the following exigent circumstances justifying warrantless searches and seizures: (1) where law enforcement officers are in "hot pursuit" of a suspect, see, e.g., State [United States ] v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 , 42-43[, 96 S.Ct. 2406 , 2409-10], 49 L.Ed.2d 300 , 305 (1976) ; (2) where there is immediate and present danger to the public or to law enforcement officers, see, e.g., Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 , 298-99[, 87 S.Ct. 1642 , 1645-46], 18 L.Ed.2d 782 , 787 (1967) ; (3) where destruction of evidence is imminent, see, e.g., Santana, 427 U.S. at 43 [, 96 S.Ct. at 2410 ], 49 L.Ed.2d at 305 ; and (4) where the gravity of the offense for which the suspect is arrested is high, see, e.g., Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 , 753[, 104 S.Ct. 2091 , 2099], 80 L.Ed.2d 732 , 745 (1984). These cases suggest that exigent circumstances exist where the need f”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 242 N.C. App. 464 - State v. Jordan

2. “What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. Thus, when officers are in a public place or some other area, such as an open field, that is not protected by the Fourth Amendment, knowledge that they gain from their plain-view observations does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. Whether such plain-view observations can justify a warrantless seizure, however, is a separate question. If the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment were defined exclusively by rights of privacy, “plain view” seizures would not implicate that constitutional provision at all. Yet, far from being automatically upheld, “plain view” seizures have been scrupulously subjected to Fourth Amendment inquiry. That is because, the absence of a privacy interest notwithstanding, [a] seizure ... obviously invade [s] the owner’s possessory interest.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 233 N.C. App. 50 - State v. Alexander

3. “If the position advanced by the State were correct, law enforcement officers could enter onto private property and seize evidence of criminal activity without a warrant whenever they had probable cause to suspect that such activity was taking place. Such a position directly contradicts repeated admonitions by the United States Supreme Court that although “[t]he seizure of property in plain view involves no invasion of privacy and is presumptively reasonable, assuming that there is probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity[,] [a] different situation is presented... when the property in open view is situated on private premises to which access is not otherwise available for the seizing officer.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 233 N.C. App. 50 - State v. Alexander