I am happy to announce the release of a new resource on Domestic Violence Crimes and the 48-Hour Rule. This guide is intended primarily to assist magistrates and others in applying the 48-hour rule as described in G.S. 15A-534.1. The printed version of the guide uses a trifold design which opens to one long chart of offenses covered under the terms of the statute.
Brittany Bromell
Laws Taking Effect October 1
The North Carolina General Assembly has been quite busy this session. This year’s legislative updates span a range of topics within the world of criminal and motor vehicle law. Summaries of those enactments will be published on the School of Government website once the General Assembly adjourns for the session. For now, I’ll use this post to highlight the laws taking effect tomorrow, October 1, 2025.
News Roundup
One of the top stories this week is that of Decarlos Brown, who was charged in the fatal stabbing of a woman on a train in Charlotte. The crime occurred on August 22, but the Charlotte Area Transit System recently released surveillance footage to local media outlets, causing the case to garner national attention. Brown has been charged federally with committing an act causing death on a mass transportation system, which could result in the death penalty if convicted. Brown has also been charged in North Carolina with first-degree murder.
Republican leaders of the North Carolina General Assembly have since announced their plans to introduce wide-ranging legislation when they reconvene later this month. The legislators are aiming to advance a package of proposed laws in part designed to tighten pretrial release rules, create more oversight of and less discretion for magistrates, and restart the use of the death penalty in the state. Any criminal legislation that is enacted will be covered on this blog and included in our annual legislative summaries.
Legislature Revisits Law on Immigration Detainers
A few months ago, I blogged about the legislative changes that took effect last year surrounding the processing of defendants who are subject to immigration detainers. The North Carolina General Assembly revisited the topic this legislative session in S.L. 2025-85 (H 318). Effective October 1, 2025, the law modifies some of the provisions enacted by S.L. 2024-55 (H 10) and creates a new pretrial release procedure that requires judicial officials to determine legal residency for defendants charged with certain offenses.
News Roundup
Erik Menendez was denied parole by a panel of California commissioners yesterday. He and his brother Lyle were sentenced to life in prison in 1996 for fatally shooting their parents in the family’s Beverly Hills mansion in 1989.
During his 10-hour hearing, he offered a detailed account of how he was raised and why he made the choices he did, both at the time of his parents’ killing and during his decades in prison. A panel of two parole commissioners said Menendez was unsuitable for release. They said his actions in prison—including affiliating with a prison gang and having a cellphone in violation of the rules—showed he was a risk to public safety.
Menendez can come before the parole board again in three years if the decision is not overturned. Lyle Menendez’s case is set to be heard by the parole board today.
Pretrial Custody Release: Notes from Other Jurisdictions
When a person is arrested, a law enforcement officer must take that person before a judicial official without unnecessary delay. Subject to certain statutory exceptions, defendants charged with most noncapital offenses are entitled to pretrial release in accordance with G.S. 15A-534, which requires that at least one of five types of release be imposed before a defendant can be released. One type of release a judicial official may impose on a defendant is a “custody release,” under which a defendant is placed “in the custody of a designated person or organization agreeing to supervise him.” G.S. 15A-534(a)(3). This is the extent to which the custody release is described. The North Carolina general statutes do not provide additional guidance as to qualifications of a custodian, terms of the supervision, or penalties for improper supervision.
Other states have pretrial release statutes that are identical or substantially similar to that of North Carolina, explicitly providing for pretrial release of a defendant into the custody of an individual or organization. Many of those statutes—like that of North Carolina—do not offer further guidance regarding the custodian’s supervision of the defendant. However, there are a few that offer additional detail about the parameters of the custody release.
This post highlights custody release provisions in select states. While none of them is binding on this condition in our state, North Carolina judicial officials may find the information useful in crafting their local pretrial release policies.
Filling in the Gaps: Changes on the Horizon for Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence
Several times a year, I teach different groups about criminal domestic violence laws in North Carolina. Last year, I highlighted the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (MCDV) under G.S. 14-32.5 in many of the sessions, but there were many unresolved questions. Earlier this month, the General Assembly passed Session Law 2025-70 (Senate Bill 429) which, among other things, answers many of those questions. This post reviews the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence and the pending changes to the law.
News Roundup
The Trump administration sued the state of New York on Thursday over a law that blocks immigration officials from arresting people at New York courthouses, saying it purposely shields dangerous criminals. New York’s 2020 Protect Our Courts Act bans federal immigration officials from arresting people who are coming and going from courthouses or in court for proceedings unless they have a warrant signed by a judge. Democratic state Senator Brad Hoylman, the bill’s sponsor, said at the time the legislation was a rebuke to the first Trump administration’s practice of turning New York courts into “hunting grounds” for federal agents.
The Justice Department’s lawsuit said arrests in or near courthouses are safer for officers and the public because individuals are screened for weapons and contraband before entering the buildings. The lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal actions targeting state or local policies the administration says interfere with immigration enforcement.
Surrender, Return, and Disposal of Firearms in Civil Domestic Violence Cases
North Carolina General Statute 50B-3.1 provides that, under certain circumstances, a person who is subject to a DVPO must be ordered to surrender to the sheriff “all firearms, machine guns, ammunition, permits to purchase firearms, and permits to carry concealed firearms that are in the care, custody, possession, ownership, or control of the defendant.”
That statute also permits the person to seek return of the surrendered items following the expiration of the protective order and final disposition of any related criminal charges. If the person is ineligible for the return of the items or fails to request return, then a court may order disposal of the items in one of several ways set out in the statute. This post details the procedure for surrender, return, and disposal of firearms and related items in DVPO cases.
Immigration Detainers
An immigration detainer is one of the key tools that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) uses to apprehend individuals who come in contact with local and state law enforcement agencies. Sometimes, after a defendant has been arrested for a crime, an ICE officer will file an immigration detainer (Department of Homeland Security form I-247A) with the agency that has custody of the defendant. The detainer asks the agency to notify ICE when the defendant would otherwise be eligible for release and to hold the defendant for up to 48 hours thereafter to enable ICE to take custody of the defendant.
My colleague Jeff Welty blogged about immigration detainers several years ago. Recently, my colleagues and I have received a lot of questions about the scope of judicial officials’ authority when navigating immigration detainers. This post answers some of those questions.