Search and Seizure

The Use of Minors as Confidential Informants

Serving as a confidential informant can be dangerous, whether the informant is an adult or underage. As to minors working as informants, the International Association of Chiefs of Police recounts a cautionary tale:

In 1998, police in California arrested [17-year-old Chad] MacDonald on drug charges. He agreed to act as a CI, wearing a recording device during at least one drug buy and providing police with information about local drug trafficking. A short time later, he was found dead in an alley, apparently tortured and strangled, and his girlfriend was found raped and shot to death in a canyon. MacDonald’s death was believed to have been the result of his association with law enforcement as a CI.

Bearing these risks in mind, is it lawful for police to use minors as confidential informants? Is it a good idea? This post explores the topic.

Read more

May an Undercover Officer Engage in Sexual Activity with a Suspected Prostitute?

I read a news article some time ago about officers who investigate suspected prostitutes by going undercover and purchasing their services. The article noted that this practice is controversial. Some agencies apparently don’t allow it, deeming it unnecessary and dehumanizing; others allow brief sexual contact but then require the officer to desist; and still others allow officers to engage in extended sexual contact. Similar issues arise when officers use informants to procure sexual services. A premise of the article was that there is no legal impediment to such practices, but the actual legal landscape is more mixed. This post provides more nuance.

Read more

blank

Spring 2025 Cannabis Update

I have been covering developments around the legalization of hemp in North Carolina since 2018. Never did I suspect then that I would still be working on the topic all this time later, but here we are. My last post on In Re: J.B.P. covered the then most recent developments around probable cause and the odor of cannabis. That opinion was withdrawn and has yet to reissue, but subsequent cases have basically affirmed the logic on which the case was decided. This month, the Court of Appeals released State v. Ruffin, COA24-276,  ___ N.C. App. ___ (March 5, 2025), weighing in on evidentiary challenges to opinion evidence identifying a substance as marijuana, as well as on jury instructions for marijuana cases. This post examines these and other recent legal developments impacting the state’s criminal cannabis law. Read on for the details.

Read more

When Can the Police Seize a Cell Phone Incident to Arrest, and How Long Can They Keep It?

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), holds that the contents of a cell phone may not be searched incident to arrest, but allows for the possibility that the phone itself may be seized incident to arrest. This post addresses when such a seizure is permissible and how long it may last.

Read more

Children and Consent Searches

Some time ago, I received an email from a researcher asking whether a minor may consent to the search of his or her cell phone. The question made me realize how little I knew about children’s authority to consent to searches more generally. So I cracked some law books, and wrote this post as a primer for anyone who may be as uninformed as I was.

Read more

A Movable Traffic Stop: Relocating the Search and Seizure in State v. Jackson

In State v. Jackson, No. COA23-637 (Oct. 1, 2024), the Court of Appeals considered whether an officer had reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant for trespassing. Mitchell County Sheriff’s deputies responded to a report that a suspicious vehicle had driven up an unpaved, privately-owned logging trail. “Lieutenant Beam, in his four-wheel-drive truck, drove up to the end of the trail, where he found Defendant, a female companion (“Passenger”), and Defendant’s Volkswagen Bug (the “Bug”) covered in mud and dirt.” Jackson, Slip Op. p. 2. The defendant eventually consented to a search of the car, during which officers found methamphetamine. The issue was whether the defendant was unlawfully seized when he gave consent. This post considers the opinion in Jackson.

Read more

Recent Developments Concerning Geofence Warrants

Five years ago, I wrote about geofence warrants. I said then that “there are zero cases on Westlaw . . . [and] virtually no secondary source material about these warrants.” Times have changed. Now we have cases, including one from the Fourth Circuit, and lots of secondary source material. This post explains the state of the law on geofence warrants.

Read more

Border Searches of Electronic Devices

North Carolina doesn’t have a land border with Mexico or Canada, so most people don’t think of us as a border state. But we are. We have a maritime border and several international airports that courts have deemed the functional equivalent of a border. Fourth Amendment protections are greatly reduced at the border, and United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the federal agency responsible for securing the border, reports that in 2023 it conducted border searches of electronic devices belonging to 41,467 travelers. This post considers when law enforcement officers may search an international traveler’s electronic devices.

Read more

blank

Court of Appeals Holds Sight or Odor of Cannabis = Probable Cause

Author’s Note: The Court of Appeals withdrew the decision on which this post is based on August 30, 2024.

The Court of Appeals recently settled an issue that has been unresolved in the state for several years: In light of legal hemp, does the sight or odor of cannabis still provide probable cause to justify a search or arrest? Hemp and marijuana—both varieties of the cannabis plant—are indistinguishable by sight or smell. Since State v. Parker, 277 N.C. App. 531 (2021), the Court of Appeals has wrestled with the issue. Parker and subsequent cases repeatedly declined to decide the question, holding instead that officers had probable cause under the facts of each case based on the officer’s observation of suspected marijuana “plus” additional incriminating circumstances. Some trial courts had sometimes granted motions to suppress when the probable cause was based solely or primarily on the odor or sight of cannabis. See, e.g., State v. Springs, 292 N.C. App. 207 (2024) (reversing the trial court’s grant of motion to suppress). It seems we finally have an answer. According to In Re: J.B.P., No. COA23-269, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Aug. 6, 2024), the sight or smell of cannabis, standing alone, provides an officer with probable cause to believe marijuana may be found, just as it did before the advent of legal hemp. This post discusses the implications of the J.B.P. case and offers thoughts on defending marijuana prosecutions in its wake. Read on for the details.

Read more