Jeff Welty

News Roundup

Many Americans have been paying close attention to the proceedings of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. Among the interested observers are federal prosecutors at the United States Department of Justice, who are increasingly frustrated with the Committee’s refusal to provide DOJ with transcripts of the Committee’s witness interviews. Politico reports here that DOJ thinks the transcripts may be useful in its effort to prosecute those who engaged in criminal activity during the attack. DOJ also views the Committee’s selective release of transcripts during televised hearings as fueling defense arguments that the Committee is making it impossible for defendant to get a fair trial.

Read more

News Roundup

This week, the North Carolina Senate passed a bill that would allow marijuana to be used for medical purposes. According to the legislative findings at the beginning of the bill, 37 states already permit marijuana to be used legally under at least some circumstances. Although the bill had bipartisan support in the Senate, its fate in the House is uncertain. Keep reading for more news.

Read more

Search Warrants for Digital Devices and the Requirement that Warrants be Executed within 48 Hours

I’ve had several questions lately about the requirement in G.S. 15A-248 that “[a] search warrant must be executed within 48 hours from the time of issuance.” The specific concern is how this applies to searches of digital devices, which frequently require off-site forensic analysis that may not begin, let alone end, until substantially more than 48 hours after issuance of the warrant. Although we don’t have an appellate case on point in North Carolina, courts in other jurisdictions have held that so long as the initial seizure of the device is timely, the forensic analysis may be conducted later.

Read more

Malicious Prosecution and the Supreme Court’s Recent Ruling in Thompson v. Clark

The Supreme Court of the United States decided a malicious prosecution case earlier this month. The case is Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. __ (2022), and it has been the subject of some overheated media reports. For example, one outlet claimed that before Thompson, “[p]olice officers could frame people, file bogus charges, [and] conjure evidence out of thin air” yet “still be immune from facing any sort of civil accountability.” Billy Bunion, The Supreme Court Says You Can Sue Cops Who Frame You on False Charges (April 5, 2022). That’s not right, but Thompson is still an important opinion. This post will lay out the basics of malicious prosecution, explain what the Court did in Thompson, and offer some thoughts about the significance of the new ruling.

Read more

What Does the Duty to Intervene Really Mean?

Law enforcement officers have a duty to intervene when they have an opportunity to prevent another officer from using unlawful force. That duty comes from multiple sources, including federal constitutional law, a new state statute, and, in some cases, agency policy. But what does the duty require in practice? Is verbal intervention enough, or must the officer attempt to intercede physically? What if the officer has competing obligations, such as keeping control of an unruly scene? And what should an officer do if he or she isn’t sure whether the amount of force another officer is using is appropriate? This post will address how officers and agencies might operationalize the duty to intervene.

Read more