Fourth Amendment rights are enforced primarily through the exclusionary rule, which provides that evidence derived from an unconstitutional search or seizure is generally inadmissible at trial. Under the good faith exception, however, evidence will not be suppressed when the investigating officer reasonably relied upon prior judicial authorization for the search, such as a subsequently invalidated search warrant. Until recently, under State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709 (1988), the general warrants clause of the state constitution (Art. 1, § 20) also yielded an exclusionary rule but without any good faith exception. In State v. Rogers, No. 377PS22 (N.C. Oct. 17, 2025), the North Carolina Supreme Court explicitly overruled Carter, concluding that there is a good faith exception to any exclusionary rule arising from the state constitution. This post considers the opinion in Rogers.
Case Summaries: N.C. Court of Appeals (Nov. 5, 2025)
This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on November 5, 2025. Special thanks to my colleague Brittany Bromell for her contributions to today’s post.
News Roundup
According to the Orange County (CA) District Attorney’s Office, a dozen mentally ill defendants facing criminal charges could be released if the county cannot find a facility to house them. District Attorney Todd Spitzer said that mentally ill inmates go to state hospitals for up to two years to restore competency to move forward with a trial. If competency cannot be restored, the defendant is remanded to a mental health facility. At present, the county appears to lack an adequate number of beds, which could result in the inmates being released into the community. Spitzer noted that the inmates include violent criminals accused of murder and sexual assault. The releases could occur within the next two months, with the earliest scheduled for today.
Updated Pattern Jury Instructions Available
Each year the School of Government publishes new and revised pattern jury instructions for civil, criminal, and motor vehicle negligence cases. Those instructions are created and compiled by the North Carolina Conference of Superior Court Judges Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions. The 2025 updates are available for free download here. This year’s changes account for crimes and sentencing enhancements defined and amended by the state legislature in 2024, including the new sentence enhancement for wearing a mask to conceal one’s identity during the commission of an offense (N.C.P.I.—Crim. 204.17), newly created money laundering offenses (N.C.P.I .—Crim. 220.38, -38A), revisions to larceny laws (N.C.P.I.—Crim. 216.52, -.53, -.56, –.57, -.57A, -.57B, -.57C), amendments to the laws prohibiting the sexual exploitation of a minor (N.C.P.I.—Crim. 238.21, -.21A, -.21B, -.21C, -.21D, -.21E, -.22A, -.22B, -.22C, -.25, -.25A), and new sexual extortion offenses (N.C.P.I.—Crim. 227.30, -.32, -.34, -.36). You can find a complete list of updated and new instructions here.
The Current State of Electric Bicycles and the Law
The popularity of electric bicycles (e-bikes) has surged across the country, from city streets to suburban trails. Their increased popularity has led to uncertainty and confusion in definition and regulation. Are e-bikes truly bicycles? Or are they motorcycles? Are they different from mopeds? Do you need a license to ride one? Who can regulate their use? Buyers, riders, and local officials are tasked with distinguishing between bicycles, e-bikes, electric mopeds, and electric motorcycles. Their classification matters because it can carry different legal implications. This post explores the current state of electric assisted transportation, examines how these vehicles are classified under current law, and discusses the rules that apply to their use. Read on for more details.
Iryna’s Law and Pretrial Release
Last month, the General Assembly passed Session Law 2025-93 (H 307), also known as Iryna’s Law. The legislation makes a number of changes to proceedings involving pretrial release; adds a new aggravating sentencing factor; alters the way magistrates may be disciplined; and expands the permissible methods of execution, among other things. This post focuses on the changes affecting pretrial release, most of which will take effect on December 1, 2025.
News Roundup
After the recent passage of HB 307, “Iryna’s Law,” questions are arising about whether executions will restart in North Carolina after a 19-year hiatus. Though the death penalty has been on the books during this period, legal challenges and practical issues have prevented the death penalty from being imposed.
The main change in the new law is that it allows for execution by electrocution and lethal gas. The law also directs officials to find a method other than lethal injection if lethal injection is declared unconstitutional by a state court or is otherwise unavailable. Some wonder whether North Carolina will join five other states in allowing execution by firing squad (the AP relates the history of this method here). Some experts are skeptical that these new provisions will result in the death penalty being imposed, however, given pending challenges under the Racial Justice Act as well as other appellate and post-conviction proceedings. Court orders entered at the superior court level in 2014 and 2019 have also suspended executions until litigation pertaining to the constitutionality of the method and the RJA is resolved.
Read on for more criminal law (and Halloween) news.
Artificial Intelligence, Government, and the Law: Updates from a Year of Rapid Change
Artificial intelligence (AI) continues to be a focal point for policy debates, legal disputes, and legislative action over the past year, both in North Carolina and across the United States. The pace of AI development keeps accelerating exponentially, forcing lawmakers, courts, and government agencies to consider carefully how they will regulate or use this technology. … Read more
Trends in Delinquency Complaints and Juvenile Detention Utilization
The 2024 Annual Report issued by the North Carolina Division of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (DJJDP) includes descriptive information related to the processing of cases in the juvenile justice system and the use of facilities that serve juveniles. Highlights include a notable increase in motor vehicle-related property offenses and increased demand for capacity in juvenile detention facilities. This post explores these highlights. All the data included below comes from the 2024 Annual Report unless otherwise noted.
Supreme Court Grants Certiorari to Address the Constitutionality of Prohibiting Drug Users from Possessing Firearms
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” Is that constitutional as to a regular marijuana user who is not impaired at the time he possesses a gun? Last week, the Supreme Court granted review in a case that presents that question. The answer has implications for state court, as explained below.