North Carolina Criminal Law Blog

I previously wrote (here) about the role of money bail in North Carolina and presented 2018 county-level data on the types of pretrial conditions imposed for misdemeanors. I got so […]

As the L.A. Times reports, there was another school shooting in the United States this week.  Early on Thursday morning just as classes were beginning, a student at Saugus High School in Santa Clarita, California, opened fire with a handgun while standing in the school’s quad.  Two students were killed and three others were wounded.  The gunman, apparently a 16-year-old boy whose birthday was Thursday, shot himself but survived and was being treated at a hospital at the time of writing.  Keep reading for more news.

The major national criminal law news story of the week comes from Oklahoma where on Monday more than 400 inmates had their sentences commuted and were released from prison.  It was the largest mass commutation in U.S. history.  As USA Today explains, Oklahoma made changes to its criminal law in 2016 that lowered the classification of certain offenses from felonies to misdemeanors and correspondingly reduced the punishment for those offenses.  Earlier this year, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed a law that gave those changes retroactive effect, leading to Monday’s release.  The USA Today piece says that the state expects to save $12 million by releasing the low-level offenders.  Keep reading for more news.

This post summarizes opinions issued by the Court of Appeals of North Carolina on November 5, 2019.

This post summarizes three opinions issued by the Supreme Court of North Carolina on November 1, 2019.

The Asheville Citizen Times reports that the city’s police department has implemented a policy that requires officers to use a newly-developed written consent form prior to conducting a consent search.  The form makes clear that people giving consent understand that they have a right to refuse the search, that their consent is given voluntarily, and that they understand that evidence discovered during the search may be used against them.  Consent to search may still be given verbally, but the form also may be signed by the person who is the target of the search.  The Citizen Times says that the new policy is controversial, with some arguing that the policy will reduce racial disparities in policing and others arguing that it will diminish officer safety.  The APD’s press release about the new policy is available here.  Keep reading for more news

The Greensboro News & Record reports that a United States House of Representatives subcommittee will hold a hearing in the city on Monday to hear about how North Carolina has overhauled its efforts to combat human trafficking.  The House Subcommittee on Intelligence & Counterterrorism will hear from Randolph County Sheriff’s Office Chief Deputy Aundrea Azelton; Christine Shaw Long, Executive Director of the North Carolina Human Trafficking Commission; Charlotte field office special agent for homeland security investigations Ronnie A. Martinez; and Carl L. Wall II, special agent in charge of the SBI’s human trafficking unit.  The hearing, which is open to the public, will focus on information sharing efforts between local, state, and federal officials. Keep reading for more news.

My colleagues and I traversed the state last week speaking at fall conferences for various associations. One conference staple is the criminal law case update. I created a criminal law quiz for one such session, and I thought readers might want to try their hand at answering ten criminal law questions recently addressed by the appellate courts. So, here is your quiz:

Training efforts to support implementation of the Juvenile Justice Reinvestment Act, or “raise the age,” are in full swing. With the December 1, 2019 implementation date drawing near, I have had the pleasure of teaching about the new law at many fall conferences and at five regional workshops. Common questions have been raised across these venues. This blog contains answers to some of those commonly asked questions as well as information on how to access further training and resources.

I have long thought of the exigent circumstances doctrine as an exception to the warrant requirement – it allows a search to be conducted when probable cause is present but it is impractical for officers to take the time to obtain a search warrant. That understanding was shaken when I read Phil Dixon’s summary of United States v. Curry, 937 F.3d 363 (4^th Cir. 2019). The majority in Curry ruled that exigent circumstances allowed officers to search several men without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion because they were walking away from an area where shots had just been fired. In other words, the court took the position that exigent circumstances excused not only the lack of a warrant, but also the lack of individualized suspicion. Have I been mistaken all these years?