S. v. Mann

2 Citing cases

  1. Wolf v. Colorado

    338 U.S. 25 (1949)   Cited 1,178 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that exclusionary rule did not apply to the states

    One may also without liability use force to resist an unlawful search. E.g., Commonwealth v. Martin, 105 Mass. 178; State v. Mann, 27 N.C. 45. Statutory sanctions in the main provide for the punishment of one maliciously procuring a search warrant or willfully exceeding his authority in exercising it.

  2. State v. Ferguson

    67 N.C. 219 (N.C. 1872)

    The law is well settled, that if the Court issuing the process had a general jurisdiction to issue such process, and the want of jurisdiction in the particular case did not appear on the process, the Sheriff may justify under it. Phillips v. Biron, 1 Strange, 509; Parsons v. Loyd, 2 Wm. Bl., 846; S. v. Weed, 2 Heard Lead. Cr. Cas., 202 and notes; Welch v. Scott, 27 N.C. 72; S. v. McDonald, 14 N.C. 468; S. v. Mann, 27 N.C. 45; Haskins v. Young, 19 N.C. 527. 2. It is equally clear that the assistants, summoned by the Sheriff, can justify in like manner with him.