Police in Boone may have narrowly averted a mass shooting this week. According to WRAL, Peter Gabaree was asked to leave a popular bar in the college town. He went to his vehicle in the parking lot, where two patrons noticed that he was holding a handgun. They told the bar’s security staff, who called police. Officers responded and ultimately charged Gabaree with going armed to the terror of the public. In his vehicle, they found “a tactical vest, a shotgun, the pistol and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.” The police chief described Gabaree as “preparing weapons.” Keep reading for more news.
Uncategorized
A Closer Look at the New Misdemeanor DV Crime and the 48-Hour Rule
I previously blogged about the new misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, which will take effect on December 1, 2023. For the new offense, codified as G.S. 14-32.5, a person is guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor if that person uses or attempts to use physical force, or threatens the use of a deadly weapon, against another person. The person who commits the offense must have a covered relationship with the victim, as specified by the statute.
While both the new misdemeanor domestic violence statute (G.S. 14-32.5) and the existing domestic violence pretrial release statute (G.S. 15A-534.1) require both a covered offense and a qualifying relationship, the requirements do not mirror one another. This post explores the interplay between the relationships listed under G.S. 14-32.5 and G.S. 15A-534.1.
News Roundup
A group in Massachusetts is working to clear the names of people accused of witchcraft, according to this report from the AP. The Massachusetts Witch-Hunt Justice Project includes historians and distant relatives of the hundreds of people who were charged, tried for, or convicted of witchery in the state during the 17th century. A similar effort in Connecticut resulted in a legislative resolution of innocence on behalf of the accused and an apology. According to this story, the last witchcraft trial in North America took place in Virigina in 1706. Read on for more criminal law news.
Can I Take a Look at Your Phone?
Inquisitive police officers regularly ask suspects questions like “Can I take a look at your phone?” or “Can I see your phone?” These on-the-street requests may give rise to legal questions in court. For example, if the suspect hands over the phone in response, does that provide consent for the officer to search the phone? And if so, what is the scope of the search that the officer may conduct? This post explores those issues.
General Assembly Appoints Seven New Special Superior Court Judges
A few weeks ago I wrote about provisions of the 2023 Appropriations Act that affect the judiciary. Among those changes was the creation of ten new special superior court judgeships to be filled by legislative appointment. The General Assembly made seven of those appointments last week. See S.L. 2023-148 (S 761). The list of special superior court judges who are appointed to eight-year terms effective January 1, 2024, follows.
Statutory Changes Related to Juvenile Interrogation and Secure Custody Orders
This post covers recent statutory changes related to the custodial interrogation of youth who are 16 and 17 years of age and to the issuance and execution of secure custody orders in delinquency cases. All of these changes are contained in Session law 2023-114 and will apply to offenses committed on or after December 1, 2023.
Does Consent to Search a Home Include Consent to Search Phones and Computers Located Inside?
Normally, the Fourth Amendment requires that police obtain a search warrant before officers may search a person’s phone or computer. But the person can waive his or her Fourth Amendment rights by consenting to a search without a warrant. The scope of a person’s consent is determined by what a “typical reasonable person [would] have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect.” Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991). Applying that test, if an officer asks a suspect for consent to search the suspect’s home, and the suspect agrees, does that allow the officer to search any digital devices located inside the residence?
News Roundup
The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the search of Google users’ keyword history to identify suspects in a 2020 fatal arson fire. The Court cautioned it was not making a “broad proclamation” on the constitutionality of such warrants and emphasized it was ruling on the facts of just this one case. At issue before the court was a search warrant from Denver police requiring Google to provide the IP addresses of anyone who had searched over 15 days for the address of the home that was set on fire, killing five people.
According to this AP News article, one suspect asked the court to throw the evidence out because it violated the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures by being overbroad and not being targeted against a specific person suspected of a crime. The Court ruled that the suspect had a constitutionally protected privacy interest in his Google search history even though it was only connected with an IP address and not his name. While assuming that the warrant was “constitutionally defective” for not specifying an “individualized probable cause,” the Court said it would not throw out the evidence because police were acting in good faith under what was known about the law at the time.
Keep reading for more criminal law news.
Court of Appeals Rules That Consent to Search Backpack, Given after Repeated Requests, Was Not Voluntary
Last month, the Court of Appeals ruled that police coerced a suspect into agreeing to let them search his backpack. Many of the traditional hallmarks of coercion, such as threatening language or the brandishing of weapons, were absent in this case, making it noteworthy for officers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys alike. The case is State v. Wright, __ N.C. App. __, 2023 WL 5925671 (N.C. Ct. App. Sept. 12, 2023), and this post discusses it in greater detail than the summary previously posted on the blog.
News Roundup
Most of the news I’ve gathered this week is from right here in North Carolina, but I’ll start with an interesting story from Oklahoma. The AP reports here that “A new Oklahoma judge could lose her job for sending more than 500 texts to her bailiff during a murder trial, including messages mocking the prosecutor, praising the defense attorney and calling a key witness a liar.” Judge Traci Soderstrom seems to have spent much of her time texting and scrolling through social media while presiding over a trial involving the murder of a two year old. Some of the texts were crass and tasteless enough that I won’t repeat them. She has acknowledged that her texting “probably could have waited.” The Chief Justice of the state supreme court has recommended her removal. Keep reading for more news.