There are six sentencing levels for Driving While Impaired (DWI) convictions. A defendant is only exposed to the three most severe levels (A1, 1, and 2) if a judge or jury finds the existence of one or more “grossly aggravating factors” beyond a reasonable doubt. These factors are listed in G.S. 20-179(c). One of them is “[d]riving by the defendant at the time of the offense while the defendant’s driver’s license was revoked pursuant to G.S. 20‑28(a1).” Rather than applying to all revocations, G.S. 20-28(a1) applies when person’s license is revoked for an “impaired driving revocation.” At first glance, it appears any time a person is convicted of DWI, if their license was revoked for an impaired driving revocation, this grossly aggravating factor would apply and elevate their sentencing exposure—but that may not be the case. Read on for more.
Uncategorized
The Use of Minors as Confidential Informants
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.
News Roundup
The top national story this week is that the Supreme Court just heard oral argument in a case involving a shocking error by law enforcement. In 2017, an FBI SWAT team smashed its way into an Atlanta home and discharged a flashbang grenade in a pre-dawn raid. I believe the technical term for what happened is that they scared the bejeezus out of the couple and young child who were sleeping there . . . only to find out that they had entered the wrong residence. The warrant authorizing the intrusion was for 3741 Landau Lane, but they had entered 3756 Denville Trace. The residents sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the government contended that something called the “discretionary function exception” barred recovery, and lower courts ruled for the government. The Supreme Court granted review and heard arguments this week. According to SCOTUSblog, the Court “was sympathetic” to the residents but the outcome of the case remains unclear. Read on for more news.
May an Undercover Officer Engage in Sexual Activity with a Suspected Prostitute?
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.
News Roundup
The top story this week is that country music star Jelly Roll has been recommended for a pardon by a Tennessee parole board. NBC has the story, as well as ABC and the AP. The singer, whose legal name is Jason B. Deford, 40, was convicted in 2008 of robbery and drug possession. He was released in 2016 and struggled to succeed as a musician before earning four Grammy Award nominations in February. Davidson County, TN, Sheriff Daron Hall asked Governor Bill Lee to pardon Jelly Roll last year, and the parole board’s vote on Tuesday was part of that mission. The matter is now pending before the governor. Read on for more criminal law news.
Juveniles and Vehicle Seizure Under G.S. 20-28.3
Does the law regarding motor vehicle seizure when a person is charged with felony speeding to elude arrest or an offense involving impaired driving apply to juveniles? If the case is subject to original juvenile jurisdiction, the answer is no. Read on to understand why that is and what to do if a seizure order is improperly issued.
Updated Chapters in Superior Court Judges’ Benchbook
Three chapters in the criminal law section of the Superior Court Judges’ Benchbook recently have been updated. Among those chapters is Joinder and Severance, which addresses the joinder and severance of both offenses and defendants for trial, including the factors used to assess whether joinder is appropriate, the applicable procedural rules, and potential remedies for failure … Read more
Supreme Court Upholds ATF Regulation Defining Gun “Parts Kits” as Firearms
A couple of weeks ago, the Supreme Court decided Bondi v. VanDerStok, 604 U.S. __ (2025). It is an administrative law case, not a Second Amendment case, but folks interested in firearms law will still want to know about it. The media has generally described this case as allowing the ATF to ban “ghost guns,” which is not exactly wrong but also is not precise. Read on for more details.
News Roundup
A woman was babysitting a child near Great Bend, Kansas, when the child she was watching complained of a monster under the bed. Seeking to assuage the child’s fear, the babysitter checked under the bed only to find a man hiding there. After a tussle with the babysitter, the man left the home and evaded capture until the next day, when local deputies located and arrested him. The man had recently posted bond on charges of threat crimes, domestic violence, and violating a protective order. He is now being held on no bond and is facing burglary, aggravated assault, and child endangerment charges. The AP has the story, here. Read on for more criminal law news.
Findings for Probation Violations after Expiration: Good . . . ‘Cause
This post is about the recurring issue of the requirement for a court to make findings of “good cause shown and stated” to preserve its jurisdiction to act on an alleged probation violation after the case has expired. The appellate courts have vacated many probation revocations for a lack of the required findings. The few affirmed cases show how to do things properly. Turns out, it’s not a demanding requirement.