The North Carolina Court of Appeals’ decision in State v. Hickman (COA24-893, filed November 5, 2025) revisits a foundational
While the case involves a Department of Revenue tax warrant rather than a traditional criminal investigation, its implications extend beyond tax collection. It clarifies the continuing role of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 20 of the North Carolina Constitution in protecting private dwellings from unauthorized searches and seizures.
The opinion also reaffirms an older, quieter truth that sometimes gets lost in modern exclusionary-rule debate.
Preservation of legal issues for appeal matters. The State’s failure to raise a Rogers-style “good faith” argument left the Court to apply search-and-seizure principles without the gloss of newly expanding exceptions.
If you have questions about how constitutional protections may apply in your criminal charges or how North Carolina courts interpret the limits of search authority, contact Powers Law Firm in Charlotte for a confidential consultation. The firm’s attorneys handle complex criminal matters across Mecklenburg and surrounding counties including Iredell, Union, Lincoln, Gaston and Rowan Counties NC, addressing issues that reach the core of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 20. Call or TEXT now to schedule an appointment 704-342-4357
Administrative Civil Warrants, Criminal Searches and the Boundaries of Government Power under the Fourth Amendment in North Carolina
At the heart of Hickman was a routine-looking instrument under N.C.G.S. § 105-242 “Warrant for Collection of Taxes,” a Department of Revenue warrant authorizing levy and sale of a taxpayer’s property. Revenue officers, joined by a local sheriff’s detective, went to the defendant’s camper, which served as her residence. Once inside, they began looking through drawers and cabinets, asking about jewelry and cash.
The encounter and subsequent search of the premises in areas outside plain view, produced evidence later used to support criminal charges wholly unrelated to the tax collection effort.
The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress, reasoning that the Department’s warrant permitted entry. On appeal, the Court of Appeals disagreed.
The appellate court drew a sharp line between a levy and a search.
The statute, the Court explained, authorizes seizure of property for tax collection, but it does not give revenue officers power to enter a home and rummage through its contents.
The Court adopted the reasoning of G.M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338 (1977), where the Supreme Court held that tax agents may seize assets in public or business settings but may not enter private premises without a judicial search warrant.
This distinction may seem technical, but it lies at the core of the Fourth Amendment.
The power to collect taxes or enforce administrative laws does not not necessarily carry with it a parallel power to enter the home and conduct an exhaustive search of the premises, closed containers, and storage areas.
In Hickman, the Court sets forth that administrative enforcement has limits. An ‘administrative warrant’ that authorizes seizure of property is not a substitute for a search warrant issued by a neutral magistrate – Bill Powers, Criminal Defense Attorney
Constitutional Litigation: Civil Warrants, Criminal Searches & the Fourth Amendment in North Carolina
The procedural backdrop of Hickman is likely as significant as its substantive holding.
The State failed to argue that the search should be upheld under the good-faith exception to the Exclusionary Rule recognized in State v. Rogers (2024 NCSC 87).
The Court of Appeals specifically noted that the issue had not been preserved and therefore was not considered. That procedural omission determined the outcome. Without a good-faith argument, the Court reverted to the baseline rule: evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search must be suppressed.
This procedural lesson carries weight for both sides of the courtroom.
For prosecutors, Hickman demonstrates that constitutional litigation can still turn on proper preservation of disputed legal issues. Even if the Supreme Court has expanded the reach of good-faith reliance on a warrant issued by a judicial official, an appellate court will not invoke the exception to the Exclusionary Rule sua sponte.
For criminal defense lawyers in North Carolina, Hickman reinforces that procedural default cuts both ways. A defendant who diligently objects and moves to suppress may benefit when the State fails to make its own record.
To some extent, assuming the NC Supreme Court does not reverse, restores a sense of balance that sometimes fades amid broader doctrinal debates.
The exclusionary rule is not merely about deterring misconduct. It is about maintaining procedural integrity in constitutional adjudication – Bill Powers, Charlotte Criminal Defense Attorney
Article I, Section 20 Safeguards: North Carolina Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure Law
Hickman also quietly highlights the continuing vitality of Article I, Section 20 of the North Carolina Constitution. That section mirrors the Fourth Amendment but operates independently.
Some argue North Carolina has always afforded additional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures than as set forth under federal Constitutional mandate and/or case law.
There is a very good reason for that.
North Carolinians refused to join the declaring independence from King George the III without clear protections, set forth with particularity, against general warrants.
The Role of North Carolina in the History of the Fourth Amendment
Indeed, it’s fair to say that North Carolina was instrumental in the colonies insisting on aspects of the Bill of Rights, relative to Warrantless Searches and Seizures and the resulting 4th Amendment, be made clear, in writing.
The NC State Constitution provides that “general warrants” are “grievous and oppressive,” and it secures the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Historically, North Carolinna appellate opinions have treated Article I, Section 20 as coextensive with the federal provision.
Hickman demonstrates that the state constitutional protections, carry independent force. Even without addressing Rogers or the federal good-faith exception to the Exclusionary Rule doctrine as set forth in Leon, the Court reached the same conclusion that the search violated the 4th Amendment.
North Carolina courts retain the power to interpret the state constitution more protectively than federal law requires. Hickman subtly exercises that prerogative by applying a traditional suppression analysis rather than importing federal exceptions wholesale.
It stands as a reminder that the North Carolina Constitution remains an autonomous source of protection, especially in areas like administrative searches, where statutory schemes risk blurring constitutional boundaries.
Practical Implications of Hickman for Defense Lawyers
For practitioners, Hickman provides a concrete precedent for challenging administrative or quasi-civil searches conducted without proper judicial oversight.
It emphasizes the need to scrutinize the legal authority claimed by state agencies.
A revenue agent’s “warrant” to levy property does not authorize a full-scale residential search, just as a health-department inspection order does not permit rummaging through personal effects.
If the government relies on an administrative or civil enforcement statute rather than a criminal warrant, the scope of permissible intrusion is narrow. Hickman makes clear that the exclusionary rule applies when that line is crossed.
What is the Presumption of Innocence?
The opinion also illustrates the back-and-forth between administrative law and criminal procedure.
When evidence obtained under administrative authority migrates into a criminal prosecution, the constitutional analysis supersedes the purported reasoning and/or purposes.
Courts will not excuse a warrantless residential search merely because the initiating document came from a civil agency. Once the evidence becomes part of a criminal case, constitutional scrutiny attaches – Bill Powers, Criminal Defense Attorney
Frequently Asked Questions About Administrative Warrants and Fourth Amendment Rights
Can a tax warrant authorize police to search my home?
A tax warrant cannot authorize police to conduct a full search of your home. In State v. Hickman, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that a Department of Revenue warrant to levy property does not permit officers to enter a residence and search through drawers, cabinets, and personal belongings. Tax collection warrants authorize seizure of specific assets, but searching a private dwelling requires a separate judicial search warrant issued by a neutral magistrate or judge.
What’s the difference between a levy and a search under the Fourth Amendment?
A levy and a search serve different legal purposes under the Fourth Amendment. A levy allows government agents to seize specific property to satisfy a debt or tax obligation, while a search involves examining private areas and containers to find evidence. The critical distinction is that levying property in public view may not require a warrant, but searching the interior of a private residence requires a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate based on probable cause.
Does the exclusionary rule apply to evidence found during administrative searches?
The exclusionary rule does apply to evidence found during administrative searches when that evidence becomes part of a criminal prosecution. State v. Hickman confirms that evidence obtained under administrative authority is subject to full Fourth Amendment scrutiny once introduced in a criminal case. If the administrative search violated constitutional protections, courts should suppress the evidence regardless of the original civil or administrative purpose.
What is Article I, Section 20 of the North Carolina Constitution?
Article I, Section 20 of the North Carolina Constitution protects North Carolina residents against unreasonable searches and seizures. This NC State Constitution provision mirrors the Fourth Amendment but operates independently and may provide additional protections beyond federal law. North Carolina courts may, in appropriate circumstances, interpret Section 20 more protectively than the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the Fourth Amendment, particularly in cases involving administrative searches and warrantless entries.
Fourth Amendment Policy Perspective: The Necessary Pinch of Salt
Beyond its procedural and doctrinal lessons, Hickman reflects a broader policy equilibrium.
The Court did not question the Department of Revenue’s authority to collect taxes or enforce liens. It simply held that such enforcement must respect the constitutional boundary between seizure and search.
That balance mirrors the reasoning in G.M. Leasing, where the Supreme Court observed that tax collection is a “formidable power” but one that “does not include the power to invade the privacy of the home.”
At first glance, the policy message is straightforward and frankly should always prevail.
Efficiency in enforcement cannot eclipse constitutional restraint. By requiring revenue officers to obtain a search warrant before entering a residence, the Court preserved both governmental legitimacy and citizen security.
The Fourth Amendment does not hinder legitimate tax collection. It channels it through established judicial process.
That said, had the State raised and preserved a good-faith argument, Hickman almost certainly would have turned out differently.
The appellate court didn’t reject the good-faith doctrine on principle. It simply applied the Exclusionary Rule because the issue wasn’t preserved.
That means the opinion doesn’t reflect a resurgence of Fourth Amendment strictness so much as a procedural accident that produced a textbook suppression result.
The Court of Appeals applied traditional constitutional analysis because it had no alternative framework before it.
Had the State argued that the agents relied in good faith on a Department of Revenue warrant, the panel very well may have analyzed the case through the Rogers lens and upheld the evidence.
Why Hickman Matters for North Carolina Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure Law
State v. Hickman reminds lawyers that the foundation of constitutional law in North Carolina is still the warrant requirement. The Court of Appeals reached the logical outcome not because it broke new ground, but because it could not (and therefore did not) apply the judicially created “good faith” exception that appears likely to dominate search and seizure analysis in the years to come. The State never preserved that argument, and the Court therefore refused to supply it.
In doing so, the opinion frankly re-centers the discussion where it belongs. The Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 20 do not bend to administrative convenience or after-the-fact rationalization. They demand that the government follow process before invading private space. Hickman did not expand constitutional rights. It simply applied them in their original form, without the overlay of judicial activism that sometimes replaces legal reasoning with policy preference.
That restraint deserves attention. It shows that fidelity to the Constitution requires discipline as much as philosophy. When courts decline to rescue a deficient record with doctrines like “good faith,” they reaffirm the structural role of warrants and judicial oversight.
For lawyers litigating suppression issues, Hickman serves as both precedent and warning. It reminds North Carolina criminal defense lawyers to preserve constitutional claims. More broadly, it shows that procedural rigor is not mere formality. The Fourth Amendment is the mechanism by which liberty is maintained.
If you face a case involving a search or seizure in North Carolina, it is a good idea to consult with an attorney who understands both the text and the reality of how constitutional law is applied in courtrooms across the state. Attorney Bill Powers and the team at Powers Law Firm in Charlotte handle complex Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 20 issues in the Charlotte metro region, including Iredell, Union, Gaston, Rowan, and Lincoln County NC. For select legal matters Bill Powers is available to consult on a statewide basis. To learn more or schedule a confidential consultation, please TEXT or call 704-342-4357