This post summarizes published decisions from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that may be of interest to state criminal practitioners from October, 2019.
News Roundup
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
New Rules for Safekeepers
A new law, already in effect as of October 1, 2019, makes some important changes to the process for transferring certain inmates from the county jail to the State prison system for medical or mental health treatment—commonly referred to as safekeepers.
Reducing Impaired Driving 2.0
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently released this report on fatal motor vehicle crashes in 2018. The number of traffic fatalities nationwide decreased modestly last year as did the number of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities. In North Carolina, the number of fatalities in both categories modestly increased in 2018. In the aggregate, neither the national nor the state numbers reflect much change in the fatality rate associated with traffic crashes generally or impaired driving-related crashes specifically. While there were precipitous declines in alcohol-impaired driving fatalities from 1982 to 2000, since that time the number of impaired driving-related fatalities has remained rather constant. A similar plateau exists for all types of traffic fatalities, for which the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled has remained relatively static for the last decade. This flat trend line has safety advocates wondering what they can do, particularly in the impaired driving context, to push the trend line toward zero.
Who is the Victim When a Defendant Steals a Decedent’s Personal Property?
When a defendant steals personal property that belonged to someone who recently died, who should be alleged as the victim in the criminal pleading? I’ve been asked this question several times, so I thought I would try to answer it here on the blog.
News Roundup
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.
Prior Record Level: What a Defendant Can and Cannot Stipulate To
Under G.S. 15A-1340.14(f), a defendant’s prior convictions can be proved by stipulation of the parties. And they often are. But that doesn’t mean every aspect of a person’s prior record level can be proved by stipulation. Today’s post collects the rules for what a defendant can and cannot stipulate to.
Test Yourself this Humpday
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:
Raise the Age FAQs
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.
Is the Exigent Circumstances Doctrine an Exception to the Warrant Requirement, or Something More?
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 (4th 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?