State v. Danziger

95 S.E.2d 862, 245 N.C. 406, 1957 N.C. LEXIS 452
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided January 11, 1957·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PeR Curiam.

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.

JOHNSON, J., not sitting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Danziger, 95 S.E.2d 862, 245 N.C. 406, 1957 N.C. LEXIS 452 (N.C. 1957).

95 S.E.2d 862 (State v. Danziger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Clark
203 S.E.2d 103 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1974)