The 2020 Cumulative Supplement to Arrest, Search, and Investigation in North Carolina, written by Robert L. Farb and Christopher Tyner, is now available for purchase. The supplement updates Arrest, Search, […]
The Senate Judiciary Committee held four days of hearings this week on President Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. The committee is expected to approve her nomination along party lines and has scheduled that vote for October 22. Barrett currently serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia in the late 1990’s. Prior to becoming a federal judge, Barrett spent 15 years as a law professor at Notre Dame. She noted in her opening statement that if confirmed she would be the only sitting Justice who didn’t attend Harvard or Yale. Keep reading for more news.
Some of my recent posts have addressed weapon offenses at demonstrations and other public events, and I also wrote recently about the issue of dicta in a court opinion being treated as binding precedent. Those two topics converged in an interesting way during a training seminar yesterday for magistrates.
We were discussing one of the most well-known offenses in this area, Going Armed to Terror of the People, when this question came up: is it really limited to offenses that occur “on a public highway,” or can it apply in other public places like parks, bus stations, and government buildings? If not, why not? Especially since other breach of the peace offenses like affray or disorderly conduct apply more broadly to any “public place?”
Charging practices seem to differ on this point around the state, and there is some room for debate depending on how far back we go in the case law, so I thought it warranted a closer look.
This post is the third in a series examining the impact of Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct 2206 (2018) on electronic surveillance and the obtaining of location and other types of information from third parties. The first post summarized post-Carpenter decisions relating to surveillance by pole camera and tower dumps. The second examined post-Carpenter rulings on the obtaining of real-time surveillance information through satellite-based Global Positioning System data (GPS) or cell site location information (CSLI). This post examines the use of cell site simulators and the obtaining of other information about a person’s on-line activities or accounts from third parties.
Yesterday afternoon, federal and state officials announced that 13 men had been arrested and charged with various criminal offenses arising from plots to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, kill law enforcement officers, and attack the Michigan State Capitol in Lansing. Many of those arrested were affiliated with a group known as the Wolverine Watchmen that has been described as an extremist private militia. Six men are facing federal kidnapping conspiracy charges and six others have been charged with a Michigan state terrorism offense. The federal criminal complaint is available here. Keep reading for more news.
This post summarizes published criminal opinions by the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on October 6, 2020.
This post is the second in a series examining the impact of Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct 2206 (2018) on electronic surveillance and the obtaining of location and other types of information from third parties. The first post in this series summarized post-Carpenter decisions relating to surveillance by pole camera and tower dumps. This post examines post-Carpenter rulings on the obtaining of real-time surveillance information through satellite-based Global Positioning System data (GPS) or cell site location information (CSLI). The last post in this series will examine the use of cell site simulators and the obtaining of other information about a person’s on-line activities or accounts from third parties. 
WLOS reported this week that the Macon County Sheriff’s Office has been identified as a COVID-19 cluster after multiple employees tested positive for the virus. In a statement posted to Facebook, the department said that cases in the department ranged from mild to severe. Public access to the sheriff’s office will be restricted over the next few weeks but the department will continue to provide its regular services. Keep reading for more news.
This post summarizes opinions issued by the North Carolina Supreme Court on September 25, 2020.
Two years have passed since the Supreme Court held in Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ___, 138 S.Ct. 2206 (2018), that the government carried out a Fourth Amendment search when it obtained historical cell site location information (CSLI) for the defendant’s phone from a wireless carrier. Relying in part on the view expressed by five concurring justices in United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements, the court determined that allowing the government access to at least seven days of historical cell-site records contravenes that expectation, even when the records are generated for commercial purposes and held by a third party.
The Carpenter majority characterized its decision as “a narrow one” and noted that it was not expressing a view on “real-time CSLI or ‘tower dumps,’” disturbing the traditional application of the third-party doctrine, or “call[ing] into question conventional surveillance techniques and tools, such as security cameras.” Id. at 2220. Dissenting justices, in contrast, characterized the court’s reasoning as “fractur[ing] two fundamental pillars of Fourth Amendment law,” and “guarantee[ing] a blizzard of litigation while threatening many legitimate and valuable investigative practices upon which law enforcement has rightfully come to rely.” Id. at 2247. (Alito, J., dissenting).
Lower courts have applied and distinguished Carpenter in a number of cases involving electronic surveillance and the obtaining of location and other types of information from third parties. This post, the first in a three-part series, summarizes post-Carpenter decisions relating to surveillance by pole camera and tower dumps. The second post in this series will examine post-Carpenter rulings on the obtaining of real-time surveillance through GPS or CSLI. The third post will consider the use of cell site simulators and the obtaining of other information about a person’s on-line activities or accounts from third parties. After reading all three, you can decide for yourself whether Carpenter’s progeny has bolstered the majority’s view of its limitations or has borne out the dissent’s warnings regarding its reach.