Recent Blog Posts Page 10 on North Carolina Criminal Law Blog

In U.S. v. Johnson, 148 F.4th 287 (4th Cir. 2025) (summarized here), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently rejected a Fourth Amendment challenge to a canine sniff at the front door of the defendant’s apartment. My colleagues Jeff Welty and Shea Denning have blogged about the issue of curtilage and multi-unit dwellings like apartment buildings in the past (here, here, and here), but Johnson is a good refresher on those principles. Read on for the details.

I recently participated in a WFAE radio show about law enforcement use of drones, along with a captain from the Winston-Salem Police Department and an advocate from the ACLU. I thought the discussion was excellent, with a nice balance of perspectives. In the course of preparing for the program, I did an environmental scan about how law enforcement officers are currently using drones, and looked for court opinions about some of the legal questions presented by drone use. This post summarizes what I learned before and during the show.

After 43 days, the government shutdown has ended. President Trump signed the spending bill late Wednesday night, funding the federal government through January 2026. Along with resuming funding for food stamps and federal worker salaries, the bill includes provisions allowing senators to sue the Justice Department as well as broader criminalization of hemp derived products. Retroactive to January of 2022, senators who have had phone records obtained without notification by the Justice Department would be permitted to sue for up to $500,000. While it does not mention special counsel Jack Smith’s probe of the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, the provision would apply to eight senators who had their phone records obtained as part of the probe in 2023. The spending bill also changes the lawful THC content threshold for hemp derived products from 0.3% Delta 9 THC to 0.4mg of any variant of THC. Farmers and legislators from around the country have voiced concern that this could effectively eliminate over 95% of products currently sold lawfully. Read on for more criminal law news.

I’m pleased to share that the eighth edition of North Carolina Crimes: A Guidebook on the Elements of Crime is now available.

Fourth Amendment rights are enforced primarily through the exclusionary rule, which provides that evidence derived from an unconstitutional search or seizure is generally inadmissible at trial. Under the good faith exception, however, evidence will not be suppressed when the investigating officer reasonably relied upon prior judicial authorization for the search, such as a subsequently invalidated search warrant. Until recently, under State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709 (1988), the general warrants clause of the state constitution (Art. 1, § 20) also yielded an exclusionary rule but without any good faith exception. In State v. Rogers, No. 377PS22 (N.C. Oct. 17, 2025), the North Carolina Supreme Court explicitly overruled Carter, concluding that there is a good faith exception to any exclusionary rule arising from the state constitution. This post considers the opinion in Rogers.

This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on November 5, 2025. Special thanks to my colleague Brittany Bromell for her contributions to today’s post.

According to the Orange County (CA) District Attorney’s Office, a dozen mentally ill defendants facing criminal charges could be released if the county cannot find a facility to house them. District Attorney Todd Spitzer said that mentally ill inmates go to state hospitals for up to two years to restore competency to move forward with a trial. If competency cannot be restored, the defendant is remanded to a mental health facility. At present, the county appears to lack an adequate number of beds, which could result in the inmates being released into the community. Spitzer noted that the inmates include violent criminals accused of murder and sexual assault. The releases could occur within the next two months, with the earliest scheduled for today.

Each year the School of Government publishes new and revised pattern jury instructions for civil, criminal, and motor vehicle negligence cases. Those instructions are created and compiled by the North Carolina Conference of Superior Court Judges Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions. The 2025 updates are available for free download here. This year’s changes account for crimes and sentencing enhancements defined and amended by the state legislature in 2024, including the new sentence enhancement for wearing a mask to conceal one’s identity during the commission of an offense (N.C.P.I.—Crim. 204.17), newly created money laundering offenses (N.C.P.I .—Crim. 220.38, -38A), revisions to larceny laws (N.C.P.I.—Crim. 216.52, -.53, -.56, –.57, -.57A, -.57B, -.57C), amendments to the laws prohibiting the sexual exploitation of a minor (N.C.P.I.—Crim. 238.21, -.21A, -.21B, -.21C, -.21D, -.21E, -.22A, -.22B, -.22C, -.25, -.25A), and new sexual extortion offenses (N.C.P.I.—Crim. 227.30, -.32, -.34, -.36). You can find a complete list of updated and new instructions here.

The popularity of electric bicycles (e-bikes) has surged across the country, from city streets to suburban trails. Their increased popularity has led to uncertainty and confusion in definition and regulation. Are e-bikes truly bicycles? Or are they motorcycles? Are they different from mopeds? Do you need a license to ride one? Who can regulate their use? Buyers, riders, and local officials are tasked with distinguishing between bicycles, e-bikes, electric mopeds, and electric motorcycles. Their classification matters because it can carry different legal implications. This post explores the current state of electric assisted transportation, examines how these vehicles are classified under current law, and discusses the rules that apply to their use. Read on for more details.

Last month, the General Assembly passed Session Law 2025-93 (H 307), also known as Iryna’s Law. The legislation makes a number of changes to proceedings involving pretrial release; adds a new aggravating sentencing factor; alters the way magistrates may be disciplined; and expands the permissible methods of execution, among other things. This post focuses on the changes affecting pretrial release, most of which will take effect on December 1, 2025.