Latest posts in category Search and Seizure on North Carolina Criminal Law Blog

The role of law enforcement officers in involuntary commitments is controversial. Some argue that individuals subject to involuntary commitment are dangerous by definition, so it makes sense to task officers […]

Most law enforcement officers don’t wear masks, but in recent immigration enforcement surges, many ICE officers have done so. ICE apparently permits the practice but does not require it. Proponents […]

The North Carolina Supreme Court held in State v. Julius, 385 N.C. 331 (2023) (Julius I), that an officer’s warrantless search of a vehicle trapped in a ditch and partially […]

When can law enforcement officers enter a person’s home, without a warrant, in order to provide emergency assistance? How sure must the officers be that assistance is needed before an […]

In U.S. v. Johnson, 148 F.4th 287 (4th Cir. 2025) (summarized here), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently rejected a Fourth Amendment challenge to a canine sniff at the front door of the defendant’s apartment. My colleagues Jeff Welty and Shea Denning have blogged about the issue of curtilage and multi-unit dwellings like apartment buildings in the past (here, here, and here), but Johnson is a good refresher on those principles. Read on for the details.

Fourth Amendment rights are enforced primarily through the exclusionary rule, which provides that evidence derived from an unconstitutional search or seizure is generally inadmissible at trial. Under the good faith exception, however, evidence will not be suppressed when the investigating officer reasonably relied upon prior judicial authorization for the search, such as a subsequently invalidated search warrant. Until recently, under State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709 (1988), the general warrants clause of the state constitution (Art. 1, § 20) also yielded an exclusionary rule but without any good faith exception. In State v. Rogers, No. 377PS22 (N.C. Oct. 17, 2025), the North Carolina Supreme Court explicitly overruled Carter, concluding that there is a good faith exception to any exclusionary rule arising from the state constitution. This post considers the opinion in Rogers.

Law enforcement officers regularly work with Confidential Informants (CIs) when investigating organized crime or building cases against individuals in leadership positions within criminal enterprises. CIs are most commonly involved in drug cases, ranging from high-level trafficking to street-level dealing, but they may also play a role in the investigation of other crimes such as bribery, fraud, or firearms trafficking.

When cases involving CIs make it to North Carolina courts, difficult questions often arise as to how to balance the state’s interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the informant’s identity with the defendant’s rights to a fair trial and open-file discovery. These questions go beyond the traditional binary of whether the CI’s identity should or should not be revealed to the defense. See Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957). Especially as technology evolves and CI activity is regularly captured through audio/video recordings, judges must navigate challenging decisions regarding precisely what should be turned over to the defense.

In February, I blogged about State v. Thomas, 295 N.C. App. 564 (2024), and whether law enforcement can review ankle-monitoring data without a warrant. The defendant in Thomas was on post-release supervision when officers pulled his location data, and the Court of Appeals upheld the warrantless retrieval of the data. However, questions remain about whether a warrant is necessary when a supervisee is on probation or pretrial release. Although North Carolina appellate courts have not directly addressed these questions, courts outside the state have in recent years. This post examines some of the cases.

Law enforcement officers have long been authorized to search a person incident to the person’s arrest. But the precise scope of that authority has shifted over time. The most recent major case in this area was Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), which placed new limits on an officer’s ability to search a motor vehicle incident to the arrest of an occupant. Whether Gant has any impact on an officer’s authority to search hand luggage like purses and backpacks has been the subject of considerable controversy. The issue is important given the ubiquity with which men as well as women carry backpacks, satchels, crossbody slings, and many other types of bags. This post discusses searches of such items incident to arrest.

Municipal police have many duties, sometimes including enforcing municipal ordinances. Municipalities without their own police departments typically rely on the county sheriff to provide law enforcement services. The sheriff certainly has territorial jurisdiction to enforce state laws within city limits. But may the sheriff and his or her deputies also enforce municipal ordinances?