Last fall, I wrote a post about the litigation over the constitutionality of various firearms restrictions in the wake of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. __, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). Recall that in Bruen, the Supreme Court announced a new interpretive approach for Second Amendment claims: courts must determine whether the challenged regulation is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Litigants have subsequently come forward with numerous challenges to gun laws, and courts have struggled with how to apply the new test. As detailed below, the Fifth Circuit recently issued a major federal appellate case decided under the Bruen framework, and we are awaiting another from the Third Circuit on an even more important issue.
Uncategorized
News Roundup
Next door in South Carolina, disgraced personal injury attorney and part-time prosecutor Alex Murdaugh has been convicted of the murders of his wife and son. The case has been in the news partly because of what some see as the exotic lifestyle of the Murdaugh family, with the murders taking place on the family’s 1700 acre lowcountry hunting estate. (The property has recently been put up for sale and is under contract – you can see the listing here.) Murdaugh testified in his own defense, admitting that he regularly stole money from his clients and that he lied to police during the investigation of the crimes. Closing arguments took place on Wednesday and Thursday, with deliberations lasting under three hours on Thursday afternoon. The Associated Press covers the verdict here. NPR has a story here that addresses some of the major revelations of the trial. Keep reading for more news.
Right to a Public Trial
The Sixth Amendment provides that a person accused of a crime “shall enjoy a public trial.” This right is grounded in the belief that judges and prosecutors will carry out their duties more responsibly in open court than they might in secret proceedings as well as the notion that a public trial encourages witnesses to come forward and discourages perjury. See Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 46 (1984).
The right to open trial proceedings is not absolute; it operates as a strong presumption rather than a guarantee. The presumption may be overcome in rare cases by other compelling rights and interests, such as the defendant’s right to a fair trial, the government’s interest in limiting the disclosure of sensitive information, and the need to protect the personal dignity of a testifying and vulnerable witness. See id. at 45; Bell v. Jarvis, 236 F.3d 149, 167-68 (4th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
Before a judge may close criminal trial proceedings to the public, (1) the party seeking to close the courtroom must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced by open proceedings; (2) the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding; and (3) the trial court must make findings that are adequate to support the closure. Waller, 467 U.S. at 48. Finally, even if justified, (4) the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect the identified interest. Id. This four-part inquiry is referred to as the Waller test.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals in the recent case of State v. Miller, COA22-561 ___ N.C. App. ___ (Feb. 21, 2023) considered whether a trial court’s order closing the courtroom satisfied the Waller test and thus the Sixth Amendment.
Juveniles and the Law of Impaired Driving
What law applies when a juvenile is suspected of impaired driving? If the juvenile is 16- or 17-years-old, the criminal law applies in the same way that it applies to someone aged 18 or older. These offenses are carved out of juvenile jurisdiction (G.S. 7B-1501(7)b.) They are therefore criminal matters from their inception. However, if the juvenile is under age 16 at the time of the offense, the case is a juvenile matter from its inception. This blog explains how cases alleging impaired driving under the age of 16 should proceed pursuant to the Juvenile Code.
Fourth Circuit Rules that the First Amendment May Protect a Vehicle Occupant’s Right to Livestream a Traffic Stop
Several years ago, two officers working for the Winterville Police Department stopped a car for a traffic violation. Dijon Sharpe was a passenger in the vehicle. Sharpe had some prior negative interactions with police, so he began using his phone to livestream the stop on Facebook Live. One of the officers saw what Sharpe was doing and attempted to grab the phone, saying “We ain’t gonna do Facebook Live, because that’s an officer safety issue.” Sharpe held on to the phone and continued to livestream the stop. One of the officers told him that recording the stop was fine, but that livestreaming was not permissible and that “in the future,” if he attempted to livestream a stop, his phone would be taken from him. Sharpe subsequently sued, contending that the officers violated his First Amendment rights by trying to prevent him from livestreaming the stop. A federal district court dismissed his complaint. Sharpe appealed, and the Fourth Circuit recently issued a significant opinion in the case. Read on to find out what the court said.
News Roundup
Things are going full tilt at the General Assembly. One new bill of interest this week would reduce the per se impairment blood alcohol content from .08 to .05. If the bill passes, this 50-state comparison chart suggests that North Carolina would be the second state, after Utah, to adopt the lower limit. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that Utah’s adoption of the .05 standard has saved lives and recommends that other states follow suit. Keep reading for more news.
The School of Government Has a New Dean
The School of Government was founded 92 years ago as the Institute of Government. To say that the School has had continuity of leadership would be an understatement. The top job has been held by just four people, three of whom served more than two decades each:
- Albert Coates was the founder of the Institute and served as Director from 1931 to 1962.
- John Sanders served as Director from 1962 to 1973. He stepped away from the Institute to serve the university system from 1973 to 1978, during which time Henry Lewis served as Director. Sanders returned and resumed his role from 1979 to 1992.
- Since 1992, the School has been led by Mike Smith, first as Director of the Institute, and since 2001 as Dean of the School of Government.
Things will change on February 27, when our colleague Aimee Wall – currently the School’s Senior Associate Dean – will become Dean of the School. It is a watershed moment for many reasons, and while I don’t expect any disruptive changes to our work in criminal law, I thought readers would be interested to know of this transition. Below, I’ve pasted the message Chancellor Kevin Guskiewicz and Provost Chris Clemens sent to the University community about Aimee’s appointment.
News Roundup
The legislature is in session and a bill to make the Moravian cookie the official state cookie was introduced this week. According to my admittedly casual research, only a few states have official cookies. The first was New Mexico, which adopted the biscochito/bizcochito as the state cookie in 1989. Judging from this recipe, it seems to be sort of a cinnamon sugar concoction made with brandy. Read on for even more impactful news.
Court of Appeals Affirms Order Dismissing Media Entities’ Petition for Release of Law Enforcement Recordings in Andrew Brown Case
After Andrew Brown, Jr. was shot and killed in Elizabeth City in April 2021 by law enforcement officers who were attempting to serve arrest and search warrants on him, several media entities attempted to obtain law enforcement agency recordings of the events. The companies sought the release of those recordings from the superior court pursuant to G.S. 132-1.4A(g) and filed their request six days after the shooting using a form petition created by the Administrative Office of the Courts, AOC-CV-270. A superior court judge denied the request based on his conclusion that release would create a serious threat to the fair and orderly administration of justice and that there was a need to protect an active internal or criminal investigation. After the Pasquotank County district attorney announced that he would not seek charges related to the incident, the companies filed another petition on form AOC-CV-270 requesting release of the recordings. A different superior court judge dismissed this later petition on the basis that the petitioners were required to file a regular civil action to obtain the release of recordings under G.S. 132-1.4A(g). The media companies appealed, and, in an opinion published last week, the Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s ruling. See In re Custodial Law Enforcement Agency Recordings, No. COA22-446, ___ N.C. App. ___ (2023).
The Effect of Legal Hemp on Drug Dog Sniffs (Part II)
Last week, in Part I of this series, I discussed whether having a drug dog sniff a vehicle is a search if the drug dog might alert upon smelling hemp, a substance that is legal to possess. Today’s post focuses on what may be an even more significant question: if a dog alerts, does the alert provide probable cause to search?