A UNC School of Government Blog
On Friday, a panel of the court of appeals decided an interesting electronic sweepstakes case. The case is Sandhill Amusements, Inc. v. Sheriff of Onslow Co. It generally upheld a preliminary injunction against the Onslow County Sheriff and the District Attorney, barring them from enforcing the electronic sweepstakes statute against certain businesses. [Update: although the DA is … Read more
I’ve been asked several times about the new requirement that facial challenges to the constitutionality of state statutes be heard by a three-judge panel in Wake County. Does the requirement mean that facial challenges to statutes regarding criminal procedure must be heard in Raleigh? (As an example, consider State v. Thompson, 349 N.C. 483 (1998), … Read more
This fall, North Carolina voters will decide whether to amend the state constitution. The proposed amendment would allow, for the first time, bench trials for felonies in superior court. Neither the media nor advocacy groups have paid much attention to the amendment, so almost no one seems to know that it is on the table. For … Read more
[Author’s note: State v. Townsend was withdrawn and replaced by a subsequent opinion, available here. The portion of the opinion discussed below was unchanged by the subsequent opinion.] No one gets relief any more under State v. Knoll—at least not from the court of appeals. State v. Townsend, decided today, is the latest in a series … Read more
A national, empirical study of defenses found that the defense of entrapment arose in just 0.08% of cases, usually “to little avail.” Stephen G. Valdes, Frequency and Success: An Empirical Study of Criminal Law Defenses, Federal Constitutional Evidentiary Claims, and Plea Negotiations, 153 U. Penn. L. Rev. 1709, 1716 (2005). But every now and again, … Read more
The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution are commonly known as the Bill of Rights and were ratified on December 15, 1791. It is remarkable how many of these amendments are still resilient today throughout the United States. Their individual freedoms against government interference include: the freedom of speech and religion and the right … Read more
The Supreme Court ruled in Riley v. California that cell phones can’t be searched incident to arrest. Jessie explained in yesterday’s post that Riley applies to cases that were pending when it was decided. Does that mean that the results of all the cell phone searches incident to arrest conducted before Riley was decided must … Read more
Last month the U.S. Supreme Court held that under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, officers can’t search a cell phone as a search incident to arrest. Riley v. California, __ U.S. __, 134 S.Ct. 2473 (2014). For background on those cases, see the blog post here. Since then I’ve had a bunch of … Read more
In connection with an ongoing research project, I recently reviewed the 2013 Wiretap Report, prepared by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. It contains some information that may be of interest to readers, including: 3,576 wiretaps were authorized by federal or state courts in 2013, about twice the number authorized a decade earlier. … Read more
State v. Granger, decided last week, is the latest case in which the North Carolina Court of Appeals has considered, in light of Missouri v. McNeely, __ U.S. __, 133 S.Ct. 1552 (2013), whether an exigency supported the warrantless withdrawal of an impaired driving suspect’s blood over the person’s objection. Readers may recall that the … Read more