Latest posts in category Uncategorized on North Carolina Criminal Law Blog

Reuters reports that following rehearing en banc of a case decided last year, the Fourth Circuit has ruled that police do not need a warrant to obtain historical cell site location information from cell phone service providers.  The majority opinion concluded that the third party doctrine precludes a person from claiming a legitimate expectation of privacy in the location information because it has been voluntarily conveyed to the service provider.  The court’s opinion is available here.  Keep reading for more news.

As the Baltimore Sun reports, a criminal trial against one of the Baltimore police officers charged in connection with the death of Freddie Gray last year ended this week with the officer, Edward Nero, being acquitted on all charges.  According to the report, Nero’s acquittal on several misdemeanors came after a five-day bench trial that involved a novel theory of assault based on Nero detaining Gray without justification.  The Baltimore Sun also has an opinion piece from former Baltimore police officers that argues that Nero, characterized as having only a tangential role in the incident that culminated in Gray’s death, should not have been criminally charged.  Cases against other officers facing more serious charges are scheduled to be tried in the future.  Keep reading for more news.    

The U.S. Department of Justice recently issued a letter regarding its “strong interest” in putting a stop to unconstitutional court fines and fees that target the poor. According to the authors, Vanita Gupta, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Department, and Lisa Foster, Director of the Office for Access to Justice, “[T]he harm caused by unlawful practices . . . can be profound. Individuals may confront escalating debt; face repeated, unnecessary incarceration for nonpayment despite posing no danger to the community; lose their jobs; and become trapped in cycles of poverty that can be nearly impossible to escape.” The DOJ sent the letter to judges and court administrators in all fifty states on March 14, 2016, directing them to review their procedures on imposing and enforcing fines and fees. An article from the New York Times states that the DOJ rarely issues “Dear colleague” letters of this sort; the last one went out in 2010 and concerned the need to provide interpreters for people who don’t speak English.

The New York Times and Right on Crime are each reporting that South Carolina and Louisiana appear poised to raise the upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction in those states from 16- to 17-years-old.  The change would mean that most 17-year-old offenders would participate in juvenile court rather than adult court, and is in line with a bipartisan national trend towards raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction.  The article from the Times notes that North Carolina is one of only two states where 16-year-old offenders are automatically treated as adults in the criminal justice system.  The Criminal Investigation & Adjudication Committee of the N.C. Commission on the Administration of Law & Justice is working on a raise the age proposal for North Carolina. Jessica Smith, Reporter to the Committee, presented a draft report on the issue to the Committee last Friday. Information about the Committee’s work is available here.  Keep reading for more news.  

This week the Tenth Circuit ruled that a condition of supervised release that required a man convicted of distributing child pornography to complete a sex offender treatment program violated the Fifth Amendment.  The particular program at issue included a sexual history polygraph that required the man to answer questions about whether he had committed sexual crimes for which he was never charged.  The program also required him to “sign an agreement instructing the treatment provider to report any discovered sexual crimes to appropriate authorities.”  The court determined that the threat of being returned to prison for refusing to answer the polygraph questions, and thus violating supervised release, unconstitutionally compelled the man to be a witness against himself.  Keep reading for more news.

Earlier this year, the News Roundup noted that the United States Supreme Court held in Hurst v. Florida that Florida’s capital sentencing scheme was unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment because it permitted a judge to increase a defendant’s maximum authorized punishment based on the judge’s own factfinding rather than that of a jury.  The Defender Manual has an overview of the development of the Court’s Sixth Amendment jurisprudence on this issue here.  Now the Florida Supreme Court has to decide what to do about the nearly 400 inmates awaiting execution who were sentenced under the unconstitutional scheme.  The Palm Beach Post reports that former Florida Supreme Court justices were “among a handful of leading lawyers,” including two former American Bar Association presidents, calling for the court to impose life sentences on all of the inmates in a blanket commutation.

Closer to home, the North Carolina Court of Appeals decided that old G.S. 14-27.4A(c) (now codified as G.S. 14-27.28(c)), a statute which “purports to provide the trial court with the unfettered ability to lengthen a defendant’s sentence .  . . with no input from a jury,” is unconstitutional based on the same line of Supreme Court cases implicated in Hurst.  The case is State v. Singletary, and, as the opinion notes at page 28, Jessie and John have predicted for some time that the North Carolina statute likely was unconstitutional.  Keep reading for more news:

There seem to be fewer and fewer reported decisions about criminal discovery in North Carolina. A recent North Carolina Supreme Court decision finding a discovery violation by the prosecution, State v. Davis (Apr. 15, 2016), made me wonder why. This post reviews the evolution of North Carolina’s criminal discovery laws, which has brought relative calm to this area of law, along with the decision in Davis, which deals with a recurring issue about disclosure of expert opinion.

The North Carolina General Assembly’s short session began Monday.  On the first day of the session, supporters and opponents of HB2 held well attended dueling rallies in Raleigh according to this report from the Charlotte Business Journal.  The Wall Street Journal has a national perspective on the rallies here. Democratic legislators filed a bill to repeal HB2, but Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger has stated that repeal is not on the Republican agenda. The News and Observer reports that 54 protestors opposed to HB2 were arrested inside the Legislative building after refusing to leave House Speaker Tim Moore’s office and the area around it.  Keep reading for more news.

The United States Supreme Court and North Carolina appellate courts have ruled that a defendant must make an unambiguous request for counsel under Miranda to bar an officer’s custodial interrogation. A week ago, the North Carolina Court of Appeals in State v. Taylor (April 19, 2016), ruled that the defendant did not make an unambiguous request for counsel under Miranda. This post provides the background to this issue and discusses the Taylor ruling.

House Bill 2 continues to be a major topic in the local and national news this week.  As the Charlotte Observer reports, Governor McCrory defended the legislation on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday morning.  McCrory’s appearance followed his issuance of an Executive Order last week that calls for the legislature to restore a State cause of action for wrongful discharge based on employment discrimination, but does not call for changes to the controversial restroom regulations.

On Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision that reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a transgender high school student’s lawsuit alleging that his local school board discriminated against him in violation of Title IX by banning him from using the boys’ restroom at his school.  The Fourth Circuit determined that the lower court did not “accord appropriate deference to the relevant Department of Education regulations” which the Department has interpreted as requiring schools to treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.  As the Charlotte Observer reports, the McCrory administration filed a brief in the case supporting the Virginia restroom ban.