State v. Danziger
This text of 95 S.E.2d 862 (State v. Danziger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The holder of a driver’s license is only required to exhibit his license upon request, when he is operating or in charge of a motor vehicle, G.S. 20-29. The warrant does not contain this essential averment. It does not charge a criminal offense. S. v. Gibbs, 234 N.C. 259, 66 S.E. 2d 883; S. v. Miller, 231 N.C. 419, 57 S.E. 2d 392; S. v. Cole, 202 N.C. 592, 163 S.E. 594; S. v. Ballangee, 191 N.C. 700, 132 S.E. 795. The warrant should also name the officer who demands the right to inspect the license. S. v. Eason, 242 N.C. 59, 86 S.E. 2d 774. The judgment is
Arrested.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
95 S.E.2d 862, 245 N.C. 406, 1957 N.C. LEXIS 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-danziger-nc-1957.