Articles in the Search and Seizure category

Last week, several people sent me news articles about the prosecution of Samuel Tunick, who was detained by federal agents while re-entering the United States after a trip abroad. During […]

North Carolina has a budget again. S257 became S.L. 2026-41 when Governor Stein signed it on July 7. The bill contains many provisions pertinent to the criminal justice community. Some, […]

The Supreme Court decided several major cases in its recently-concluded Term, but for people interested in the Fourth Amendment, the most anticipated was United States v. Chatrie, __ U.S. __ […]

The North Carolina Supreme Court recently decided two cases considering the impact of legal cannabis on probable cause. In State v. Dobson, No. 190PA24, ___ N.C. ___; 929 S.E.2d 315 […]

The role of law enforcement officers in involuntary commitments is controversial. Some argue that individuals subject to involuntary commitment are dangerous by definition, so it makes sense to task officers […]

Most law enforcement officers don’t wear masks, but in recent immigration enforcement surges, many ICE officers have done so. ICE apparently permits the practice but does not require it. Proponents […]

The North Carolina Supreme Court held in State v. Julius, 385 N.C. 331 (2023) (Julius I), that an officer’s warrantless search of a vehicle trapped in a ditch and partially […]

When can law enforcement officers enter a person’s home, without a warrant, in order to provide emergency assistance? How sure must the officers be that assistance is needed before an […]

In U.S. v. Johnson, 148 F.4th 287 (4th Cir. 2025) (summarized here), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently rejected a Fourth Amendment challenge to a canine sniff at the front door of the defendant’s apartment. My colleagues Jeff Welty and Shea Denning have blogged about the issue of curtilage and multi-unit dwellings like apartment buildings in the past (here, here, and here), but Johnson is a good refresher on those principles. Read on for the details.

Fourth Amendment rights are enforced primarily through the exclusionary rule, which provides that evidence derived from an unconstitutional search or seizure is generally inadmissible at trial. Under the good faith exception, however, evidence will not be suppressed when the investigating officer reasonably relied upon prior judicial authorization for the search, such as a subsequently invalidated search warrant. Until recently, under State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709 (1988), the general warrants clause of the state constitution (Art. 1, § 20) also yielded an exclusionary rule but without any good faith exception. In State v. Rogers, No. 377PS22 (N.C. Oct. 17, 2025), the North Carolina Supreme Court explicitly overruled Carter, concluding that there is a good faith exception to any exclusionary rule arising from the state constitution. This post considers the opinion in Rogers.