Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

245 N.C. 406

State v. Danziger

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 11, 1957

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1957-01-11

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1974

2 state decisions

Relies on State v. Eason · State v. Miller · State v. Gibbs

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1957-01-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PeR Curiam.

¶1The holder of a driver’s license is only required to exhibit his license upon request, when he is operating or in charge of a motor vehicle, G.S. 20-29. The warrant does not contain this essential averment. It does not charge a criminal offense. S. v. Gibbs, 234 N.C. 259, 66 S.E. 2d 883; S. v. Miller, 231 N.C. 419, 57 S.E. 2d 392; S. v. Cole, 202 N.C. 592, 163 S.E. 594; S. v. Ballangee, 191 N.C. 700, 132 S.E. 795. The warrant should also name the officer who demands the right to inspect the license. S. v. Eason, 242 N.C. 59, 86 S.E. 2d 774. The judgment is

¶2Arrested.

JOHNSON, J., not sitting.
/245/nc/406 · .json · Public domain