{"id":5094,"date":"2012-10-27T11:28:46","date_gmt":"2011-01-17T07:46:49","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-01-17T07:46:49","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5094","title":{"rendered":"NC: Conflict of laws: NJ search governed by NC law where trial occurred"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant was searched in New Jersey and prosecuted in North Carolina. The search result might have been different in New Jersey, but the North Carolina court holds that state law requires that the search be governed by its state law. State v. Hernandez<\/a>, 208 N.C. App. 591, 704 S.E.2d 55 (2010):<\/p>\n

Next, Defendant argues that Trooper Ramcheran\u2019s decision to ask for consent to search the truck violated the principle of New Jersey state constitutional law enunciated in State v. Elder<\/a>, 192 N.J. 224, 927 A.2d 1250 (2007). N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-974 only authorizes the suppression of evidence in the event that \u201c[i]ts exclusion is required by the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of North Carolina\u201d or the evidence was \u201cobtained as a result of a substantial violation of the provisions of\u201d Chapter 15A of the North Carolina General Statutes. As should be obvious, any violation of the principle of New Jersey state constitutional law enunciated in Elder would not involve a violation of Chapter 15A of the North Carolina General Statutes. Assuming, without in any way deciding, that Trooper Ramcheran\u2019s actions violated the New Jersey Constitution, any such \u201cillegality under … state [law] can neither add to nor subtract from its validity\u201d under the federal or North Carolina Constitutions since a \u201c[m]ere violation of a state statute [or constitutional provision] does not infringe the federal Constitution.\u201d Snowden v. Hughes<\/a>, 321 U.S. 1, 11, 88 L. Ed. 497, 504, 64 S. Ct. 397, 402 (1944). Thus, this argument provides no basis for the suppression of evidence in a North Carolina court.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

[Now, Virginia v. Moore<\/a> would reach the same result.]<\/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-5094","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5094","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=5094"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5094\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5094"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5094"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5094"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}