Later this summer, we will be publishing a new Administration of Justice Bulletin, The Law of Vehicle Seizure and Forfeiture in North Carolina. It will cover the different circumstances in which law enforcement may seize vehicles and judges may order them forfeited. This post is a preview of two circumstances that will be included in the bulletin. One circumstance is when the vehicle is used as part of an offense related to a controlled substance. Another circumstance is when a vehicle is used to unlawfully transport nontaxpaid alcoholic beverages. Read on for the preview.
Motor Vehicles
When is Driving While License Revoked a Grossly Aggravating Factor?
There are six sentencing levels for Driving While Impaired (DWI) convictions. A defendant is only exposed to the three most severe levels (A1, 1, and 2) if a judge or jury finds the existence of one or more “grossly aggravating factors” beyond a reasonable doubt. These factors are listed in G.S. 20-179(c). One of them is “[d]riving by the defendant at the time of the offense while the defendant’s driver’s license was revoked pursuant to G.S. 20‑28(a1).” Rather than applying to all revocations, G.S. 20-28(a1) applies when person’s license is revoked for an “impaired driving revocation.” At first glance, it appears any time a person is convicted of DWI, if their license was revoked for an impaired driving revocation, this grossly aggravating factor would apply and elevate their sentencing exposure—but that may not be the case. Read on for more.
State v. Watlington: Court Clarifies Unit of Prosecution for Hit and Run
Author’s Note: This post has been modified from its original based on the reissuance of the opinion on April 16, 2025.
Earlier last month, the Court of Appeals decided State v. Watlington, COA23-1106, ___ N.C. App. ___ (2025). Among other issues, in its decision the Court addressed an open question: what is the unit of prosecution for a hit and run? May the defendant be charged once for leaving the scene of a crash that causes injury, or instead may a separate charge be issued for each person injured? (Shea Denning wrote about that issue and the framework for analysis in 2014, noting then that the question had not been directly addressed by our appellate courts). We now have an answer: the unit of prosecution is the number of crashes from which the defendant fled, not the number of people injured. Read on for further details.
Motor Vehicle Seizures: Temporary Release Pending Trial
In previous posts, I’ve addressed the expedited scheduling requirements and opportunities for permanent release of motor vehicles seized pursuant to G.S. 20-28.3. Today, I’ll address the ways a motor vehicle may be released temporarily pending trial or final disposition of the underlying offense. Generally speaking, this temporary release permits a motor vehicle owner to obtain temporary possession of the vehicle conditioned on meeting certain prerequisites and agreeing to return the motor vehicle on the day of the forfeiture hearing. Read on for more.
Pretrial Release of Seized Motor Vehicles
In every case where a person is charged with felony speeding to elude arrest pursuant to G.S. 20-141.5(b) or (b1), the motor vehicle driven is subject to seizure and forfeiture. This is also true in DWI cases where, at the date of offense, the defendant’s driver’s license was revoked for an impaired driving revocation or the defendant did not have a valid license nor insurance. When in district court, these cases have expedited calendaring requirements (discussed here). This is in part to preserve the vehicle’s value while the case is pending. Upon seizure, the vehicle is usually first towed to a local storage facility, then transferred to the facilities of a state contractor within a few days. There are fees for towing, as well as accruing fees for storage. Whether the motor vehicle is released to its owner, a lienholder, or forfeited to the county board of education, these towing and storage fees must be paid. Often, these fees are paid out of the proceeds of the sale of the vehicle. While expediting the underlying case towards resolution is one way to minimize these fees, another is release of the vehicle before case disposition. This post addresses the circumstances under which a vehicle may be fully released pretrial and does not have to be brought back for a later forfeiture hearing.
License Plate Readers, Highway Pilot Program, and New Offense
A few months ago, I wrote about Session Law 2023-151 providing for new sentencing enhancements for breaking or entering motor vehicles and other conveyances. Another part of the bill, Part V, authorizes a pilot program for placing and using automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) on “state rights-of-way.” It also adds G.S. 20-183.33 to Article 3D of Chapter 20, making it a Class 1 misdemeanor for anyone to obtain, access, preserve, or disclose data collected by ALPRs in any manner other than that allowed by the Article. The readers are already in use across much of the state, so what will the effect be of the pilot program? And what are the implications of criminalizing the unlawful access or mishandling of data collected? Read on for more.
New Publication on Driver’s License Revocations, Restorations and Privileges
I am thrilled to announce the availability of a new publication, Driver’s License Revocations, Restorations, and Limited Driving Privileges in North Carolina. This is the first School of Government publication that combines information on triggering events and convictions that lead to the revocation of a person’s North Carolina driver’s license, how and when driving privileges may … Read more
New Enhancements for Breaking or Entering Motor Vehicles and Other Conveyances
Effective December 1, 2023, Session Law 2023-151 amended G.S. 14-56 (Breaking or entering into or breaking out of railroad cars, motor vehicles, trailers, aircrafts, boats, or other watercraft) to provide for sentencing enhancements based on the aggregated value of any property taken. In amending the statute, the General Assembly added elements – taking and value – to these enhanced crimes. The General Assembly also amended G.S. 14-86.1 (Seizure and forfeiture of conveyances used in committing larceny and similar crimes) to include violating G.S. 14-56 as a basis for vehicle seizure and forfeiture. This post will review the statutory amendments and new elements, and consider whether a person may also be convicted of and punished for larceny in connection with a violation of G.S. 14-56.
2024 Changes to Laws Governing Limited Driving Privileges and Requiring Ignition Interlock
In July, the General Assembly enacted S.L. 2024-43 (H 25), legislation that makes three significant changes to the laws governing driving by person following a conviction for driving while impaired (DWI) and certain related offenses.
First, the act expands the categories of defendants who may receive a limited driving privilege following a DWI conviction. Second, it broadens the categories of defendants who must install an ignition interlock device (IID) as a condition of having their driver’s licenses restored following revocation for DWI-related convictions. Third, it extends revocation periods and IID restriction periods when an IID violation is committed during the last 90 days of the period.
The changes applicable to limited driving privileges are effective for limited driving privileges issued on or after December 1, 2024. The changes applicable to IID restrictions on restored licenses are effective for driver’s licenses that are revoked on or after December 1, 2024.
Fearrington v. City of Greenville: North Carolina Supreme Court Reverses Court of Appeals and Upholds City’s Red Light Camera Enforcement Program as Constitutional
Two men fined in 2018 for failing to stop at red light camera locations in Greenville, NC filed declaratory judgment actions arguing that the program violated the Fines and Forfeitures Clause of the North Carolina Constitution because the local school board received less than the clear proceeds of the civil penalties the city collected. The Court of Appeals in Fearrington v. City of Greenville, 282 N.C. App. 218 (2022) (discussed here), agreed, concluding that the funding framework violated the state constitution. The North Carolina Supreme Court granted discretionary review and, in an opinion issued on May 23, 2024, reversed the court of appeals ruling on the constitutional issue. Fearrington v. City of Greenville, ___ N.C. ___, 900 S.E.2d 851 (2024).
This post will discuss red light camera programs, their relationship to the Fines and Forfeiture Clause, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Fearrington.