# State v. Welch

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 6, 1986 · 316 N.C. 578

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9616923

## Case

- **Full name:** State of North Carolina v. Donnie Ray Welch
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** May 6, 1986
- **Citations:** 316 N.C. 578; 342 S.E.2d 789; 1986 N.C. LEXIS 2163
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Exum
- **Judges:** Billings, Exum
- **Cited by:** 49 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9616923

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “[s]ince the withdrawal of a blood sample is subject to fourth amendment requirements, a search warrant must be procured before a suspect may be required to submit to such a procedure unless probable cause and exigent circumstances exist that would justify a warra…
- concluding that the good faith exception was applicable and therefore “decline[d] to apply the exclusionary rule to [a] good-faith violation of the [F]ourth [A]mendment”
- holding that there was sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation when the defendant previously planned to commit the robbery, armed himself with a shotgun, and shot the victim during the robbery
- holding that the search-incident-to-arrest exception cannot justify a warrantless blood draw

## Opinion text

Justice Exum
concurring.
I agree that under the decisions of the United States Supreme Court relied on by the majority this Court must apply the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule in determining admissibility of evidence unconstitutionally seized under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. I concur with the majority’s application of these cases to the facts before us.
The parties have not argued whether this exception may sustain admissibility under the North Carolina Constitution. My concurrence in the Court’s opinion is based on my understanding that the opinion neither addresses nor answers this question.
I also concur in Justice Billings’ concurring opinion insofar as it discusses the applicability of nontestimonial identification orders to persons in custody.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9616923. Public record. Not legal advice.