Articles in the Search and Seizure category - Page 2 of 45

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?

Law enforcement officers may mislead suspects during questioning. For example, an officer may falsely tell a suspect that an accomplice has confessed, or may falsely state that incriminating physical evidence has been found. Courts generally permit such deception, reasoning that misrepresentations can be effective tactics and are not necessarily so coercive as to render a resultant confession involuntary or unreliable. But just how far can an officer go?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Last September, the Court of Appeals decided State v. Thomas, No. COA23-210, __ N.C. App. __ (2024), a case involving law enforcement’s retrieval of ankle monitor location data gathered while the defendant was on post-release supervision.

This is the first North Carolina appellate case to address whether it is constitutional for law enforcement to retrieve ankle monitor data without a warrant. This post will discuss the reasoning in Thomas and its implications for related questions.

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.