342 N.C. 407
464 S.E.2d 45
Docket No. 125A95.
STATE of North Carolina v. Alfredo F. SMITH, Jr.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided December 8, 1995.
Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1995-12-08
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“Although the defendant in Smith did not give consent, the officers had probable cause and exigent circumstances, as well as a specific tip from an informant that defendant "would have the cocaine concealed in his crotch or under his crotch. " This Court reversed the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, holding that the scope of the search was not unreasonable.”
quoted by 1 later decision, including 202 N.C. App. 376 - State v. Battle
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1995-12-08
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Paulino v. State (2007), United States v. Edwards (2011)
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 38 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Robin P. Pendergraft, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.
¶2Beaver, Holt, Richardson, Sternlicht, Burge & Glazier, P.A., by Richard B. Glazier, Fayetteville, for defendant-appellee.
¶3*46 American Civil Liberties Union Legal Foundation, by Deborah K. Ross, amicus curiae.
¶4PER CURIAM.
¶5Reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion by Judge Walker.
¶6REVERSED.