# State v. Cooke

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · October 6, 1981 · 54 N.C. App. 33

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9849342

## Case

- **Full name:** State of North Carolina v. Donald Dale Cooke
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** October 6, 1981
- **Citations:** 54 N.C. App. 33; 282 S.E.2d 800; 1981 N.C. App. LEXIS 2784
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Martin
- **Judges:** Whichard, Martin
- **Cited by:** 14 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/9849342

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the officer’s “threat that an illegal search was about to take place” precluded a finding of voluntary abandonment

## Opinion text

*46 Judge MARTIN (Robert M.)
dissenting.
I dissent. The uncontested evidence is that when inquiry was made of defendant about his possible ownership of the bag, he denied ownership and left the scene. This raises an issue as to whether defendant was precluded from claiming a legitimate expectation of privacy in the suitcase sufficient to show a violation of his rights by the search. See, United States v. Kendall, 655 F. 2d 199 (9th Cir., 1981). I would remand for findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning defendant’s abandonment of the suitcase and his standing to complain of the search of the suitcase. This procedure has been upheld by this Court in State v. Prevette, 39 N.C. App. 470 , 250 S.E. 2d 682 (1979), discr. rev. denied, 297 N.C. 179 , 254 S.E. 2d 38 (1979), and is not inconsistent with Steagald v. United States, --- U.S. ---, 68 L.Ed. 2d 38 , 101 S.Ct. 1642 (1981), which applies to the Rules of Procedure in the federal courts.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9849342. Public record. Not legal advice.