{"id":2178,"date":"2009-08-27T07:21:21","date_gmt":"2008-06-23T06:35:46","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-06-22T18:01:53","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2178","title":{"rendered":"NC: Expired tag justifies a search incident"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant was arrested for driving on an expired license of a vehicle after a stop for a worn and tattered paper tag. That permitted a complete search of the interior. The rule as to vehicles is different than dwellings. State v. Carter<\/a>, 191 N.C. App. 152, 661 S.E.2d 895 (2008), review denied by State v. Carter, 668 S.E.2d 341 (N.C. 2008), vacated and remanded Carter v. North Carolina, 129 S. Ct. 2158, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1153 (2009):<\/p>\n

Defendant relies on a series of cases that state an arresting officer may lawfully search only for property connected to the crime with which he is charged. However, none of the cases relate to the search of a defendant within an automobile, and as such are irrelevant. Defendant attempts to graft on to the above-stated rule not only a requirement that the search be only for evidence of the crime for which the defendant was arrested, but also a requirement that the illegal nature of that evidence be immediately apparent. In none of the many cases cited above (Brooks<\/em>, et al.) in which our Courts have considered this type of search has either been made a requirement.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Comment: So–what about an arrest for speeding<\/a>? Does that justify a search incident in N.C.?<\/p>\n

Officer’s mistake of law as to the reasons for stopping defendant did not make it unconstitutional. Therefore, defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging the stop. Moore v. State<\/a>, 2008 Miss. LEXIS 326 (June 19, 2008).*<\/p>\n

Defendant was charged with a sex crime which allegedly happened in the home and which used handcuffs and a rope. When relatives with the ability to consent were cleaning up the house and car, the rope and handcuffs were found. The police were called and sent in to retrieve the rope from a closet. There was no expansion of the private search, and the entry was by consent. State v. Barkmeyer<\/a>, 949 A.2d 984 (R.I. 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2178","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2178","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2178"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2178\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2178"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2178"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2178"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}