By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: June 22,2012
State v. Robinson Since the police detective had reason to believe defendant was concealing contraband in his crotch area, the detective did not violate defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights when the detective moved defendant to a shielded area and had him pull his pants away from his waist and pull his buttocks apart.
NC Lawyers Weekly keeps you connected with the latest legal news, Daily Practice and Breaking
News alerts.
Sign up for NC Lawyers Weekly email alerts
State v. Ingram though one of the eyewitnesses was only 10 years old at the time of the shooting, the credibility of the witness’s identification of defendant was a question for the jury.
State v. Cathcart Even though defendant’s failure to provide a second adequate breath sample caused the Intoximeter to time out, requiring the arresting officer to reset it to obtain another breath sample, defendant provided two breath samples within 11 minutes, registering alcohol concentrations of .10 and .09. These test results were admissible.
Dooley v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. Although an auto liability policy failed to specify any specific amount of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage provided, that omission did not mean the policy terms prohibiting “stacking,” or combining coverage for multiple insured vehicles, were ambiguous under Virginia law and would allow stacking. The 4th Circuit affirms the district court’s denial of additional coverage to appellant
