Suppression Motions

The North Carolina Court of Appeals’ decision in State v. Hickman (COA24-893, filed November 5, 2025) revisits a foundational question in constitutional law. When government agents enter private property without a warrant, what happens to the evidence they obtain?

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.

TL;DR Quick Take: North Carolina v. Rogers could prove to be one of the most consequential constitutional rulings in North Carolina criminal law in decades. The opinion not only interprets N.C.G.S. § 15A-974 but also redefines how North Carolina courts understand the relationship between the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 20 of the North Carolina State Constitution.

As applied, the Good Faith Exception articulated in State v. Rogers reverses longstanding precedent set forth in North Carolina v. Carter.

The burden quietly shifts to the accused to demonstrate unreasonableness, reversing long-standing Due Process protections and draining both the fruit and the fiber from the “poisonous tree.”

Articles Tagged with Suppression Motions

Civil Warrants, Criminal Searches: Fourth Amendment in North Carolina

State v. Rogers: Slow Death of the Exclusionary Rule in NC?