Motor Vehicles Archives – North Carolina Criminal Law

New Publication on Driver’s License Revocations, Restorations and Privileges

September 12, 2024 Shea Denning

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

September 5, 2024September 4, 2024 Belal Elrahal

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

August 1, 2024 Shea Denning

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

July 11, 2024 Shea Denning

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.

State v. C.K.D.: Knoll What?

March 6, 2024March 6, 2024 Shea Denning

I have written before about the cache associated with a handful of unpublished opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Sure, they aren’t binding, but they can be persuasive. My guess is that the Court’s December 2023 opinion in State v. C.K.D.. No. COA23-204, 2023 WL 8748032, ___ N.C. App. ___, 895 S.E.2d 923 (2023) (unpublished), has been used as a persuasive tool in more than a few impaired driving cases since it was decided.

The C.K.D. Court upheld the dismissal of impaired driving charges based on the detention of the defendant for 11 hours following his initial appearance pursuant to an impaired driving hold. The Court determined that (1) there was no clear and convincing evidence that the defendant who had registered a 0.17 alcohol concentration posed a danger, and (2) holding the defendant for 11 hours irreparably prejudiced the defendant’s case by depriving him of the opportunity to have others observe his condition, even though the defendant indicated he did not wish to call anyone to witness his condition in the jail or to assume responsibility for him as a sober, responsible adult. I was a bit surprised by the outcome. I would have thought that the alcohol concentration standing alone would have been sufficient to support the hold. I also would have thought that the defendant’s failure to attempt to contact anyone from jail would have defeated his claim of irreparable prejudice. As noted, I would have been wrong on both counts.

This post will discuss C.K.D., explore how it differs from other court of appeals decisions following Knoll, and consider what the takeaways may be for magistrates imposing such holds.

State v. Forney: Chewing Gum, Breath Tests, and Prejudice

January 25, 2024 Shea Denning

In impaired driving cases, the results of a breath test of the defendant are admissible at trial when the testing is performed in accordance with statutory requirements and applicable administrative regulations. G.S. 20-139.1(b). When the testing is not carried out as required, however, the results are inadmissible. See State v. Davis, 208 N.C. App. 26, 34 (2010).

Among the testing requirements is that the law enforcement officer carrying out the test observe the defendant to determine that he or she “has not ingested alcohol or other fluids, regurgitated, vomited, eaten, or smoked in the 15 minutes immediately prior to the collection of a breath specimen.” See 10A NCAC 41B .0101(6) (defining “observation period” and specifying further that “[d]ental devices or oral jewelry need not be removed”); 10A NCAC 41B .0322 (requiring that observation periods be met before breath test is conducted). The purpose of the observation period is to ensure that the test results reflect the concentration of alcohol in a sample of the person’s deep lung breath rather than an alcohol concentration based on alcohol in the person’s mouth.

Last week, the Court of Appeals in State v. Forney, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ____ (January 16, 2024), considered whether tests results from a defendant who had chewing gum in his mouth during the observation period were admissible under G.S. 20-139.1(b).

State v. Woolard: DWI, Probable Cause, and Motions Procedures

January 11, 2024 Shea Denning

Because the State’s ability to prove impairment in prosecutions for driving while impaired often turns on whether the officer had probable cause to arrest — and thereafter test — the defendant, probable cause to make a warrantless arrest is a frequently litigated issue in DWI cases. While for many years there was a dearth of case law exploring the hard calls in this area, that trend has changed. In several arguably close cases over the past decade, the appellate courts have considered whether impaired driving arrests by law enforcement officers were supported by probable cause. See State v. Parisi, 372 N.C. 639 (2019) (driver’s admission to drinking, his red and glassy eyes, his odor of alcohol, and multiple indicators of impairment on field sobriety tests established probable cause; affirming court of appeals’ opinion reversing trial court); State v. Lindsey, 249 N.C. App. 516 (2016) (odor of alcohol on driver’s breath, red and glassy eyes, admission to drinking, and five clues of impairment from horizontal gaze nystagmus test provided probable cause; affirming trial court order denying motion to suppress); State v. Overocker, 236 N.C. App. 423 (2014) (light odor of alcohol and consumption of three alcoholic drinks in four-hour period were insufficient to establish probable cause; affirming trial court order granting motion to suppress); and State v. Townsend, 236 N.C. App. 456 (2014) (driver’s odor of alcohol, positive results on portable breath test, bloodshot eyes, and signs of impairment while performing field sobriety tests established probable cause; affirming trial court’s denial of motion to suppress).

Last December, the North Carolina Supreme Court added to that list with its opinion in State v. Woolard, ___ N.C. ___, 894 S.E.2d 717 (2023) reversing, upon certiorari review, the trial court’s determination that an arresting officer lacked probable cause for impaired driving. This post will review Woolard, its holding, and its path to the state’s highest court.

Can a Child Be a Passenger on a Motorcycle?

December 11, 2023 Jeff Welty

I was driving around with my younger daughter this weekend when she said “I’ve never ridden on a motorcycle.” She’s ten, so she’s obviously too young to pilot one herself. But would it be lawful for her to ride as a passenger?

Recent Legislation Outlaws Street Takeovers

August 10, 2023 Shea Denning

Last month the General Assembly enacted new G.S. 20-141.10 criminalizing so-called street takeovers. S.L. 2023-97. A street takeover occurs when a person blocks or impedes traffic on a highway, street, or public vehicular area with a motor vehicle in order to perform a motor vehicle stunt, contest, or exhibition. The new statute, effective for offenses committed on or after December 1, 2023, makes it unlawful for a person to operate a motor vehicle in a street takeover or to participate in or coordinate such an event. S.L. 2023-97 further authorizes the seizure of a motor vehicle operated in violation of G.S. 20-141.10.