The General Assembly recently amended the law that governs the release of body camera footage. This post explains the change.
News Roundup
This week North Carolina was in the national news after Governor Roy Cooper vetoed a bill that would have required sheriffs to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer requests. The bill included a provision that would have made a sheriff’s refusal to cooperate with ICE a basis for removing the sheriff from office. Several sheriffs around the state, including those in Buncombe, Mecklenburg, and Wake counties, have a policy of not honoring ICE detainer requests. As this Charlotte Observer report indicates, political controversy over the legislation continues following the veto, with Cooper saying that it uses “fear to divide North Carolinians” and Republican lawmakers saying that Cooper irresponsibly vetoed a common sense bill. Keep reading for more news.
When a Person Sells Drugs Away from His or Her Home, Does that Provide Probable Cause to Search the Person’s Home?
The question in the title of this post is an oversimplified version of the issue addressed by the court of appeals last week in State v. Bailey, __ N.C. App. __, __ S.E.2d __, 2019 WL 3925864 (Aug. 20, 2019). But it isn’t oversimplified by much, and the appellate division may be inching closer to answering the question in the affirmative.
Case Summaries — North Carolina Court of Appeals
This post provides summaries of the opinions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals published on August 20, 2019.
Trapped but not Entrapped? State v. Keller
Back in May, a divided Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on entrapment in an online solicitation of a minor case. Entrapment isn’t exactly a common defense (as Jeff noted here). When it comes up, it’s often in drug cases, but it can also arise in computer solicitation cases where law enforcement officers pretend to be underage. State v. Keller, ___ N.C. App. ___, 828 S.E.2d 578 (May 21, 2019), review allowed, ___ N.C. ___ (August 14, 2019), is an example of such a case and appears to be the second reported decision dealing directly with the defense in this context, so I wanted to flag it for readers. Fair warning, this post recounts some of the sexually graphic discussions at issue in the case.
Case Summaries – Supreme Court of North Carolina
This post provides summaries of the opinions of the Supreme Court of North Carolina published on August 16, 2019.
News Roundup
In a dramatic development in an already dramatic case, Jeffrey Epstein was found dead over the weekend of apparent suicide in the Manhattan jail where he was being detained prior to trial on sex trafficking charges. Epstein’s death has generated a tremendous amount of news, ranging from criticism of his supervision to conspiratorial speculation about whether he was murdered. It is being reported that two guards at his unit, one of whom wasn’t even a fully credentialed correctional officer, fell asleep and didn’t check on Epstein for several hours prior to his death. They later falsified records to cover up that lapse. Attorney General William Barr has ordered the Justice Department’s inspector general to investigate Epstein death. Keep reading for more news.
Nonresident Registrants
In a previous post I wrote about the complexities of putting people on North Carolina’s sex offender registry for crimes committed in another state—including how a federal court found the lack of legal process for doing so unconstitutional, and how over half of the records I checked appeared to be incorrect. Today’s post considers the related issue of people on North Carolina’s registry who do not actually live in the state. Over 5,500 of the 25,000 people on North Carolina’s sex offender registry don’t reside here. Should they be on North Carolina’s registry at all? It’s not clear.
What’s the Crime When School Bathroom Graffiti Mentions a Bomb?
Author’s note: The opinion discussed below was withdrawn and replaced by In re D.W.L.B, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Sept. 17, 2019). The new opinion concludes, for the same reasons provided in the earlier opinion, that the petition failed to allege that the juvenile made a false report concerning mass violence. The new opinion omits the portion of the earlier opinion holding that the petition properly alleged a violation of graffiti vandalism, explaining that even though the petition alleged facts that could constitute the crime of graffiti vandalism, the petition did not put the juvenile on notice that he needed to defend against a graffiti vandalism charge.
An elementary school student writes “BOMB INCOMING” on the wall of the boys’ bathroom at school. The student does not, in fact, know of any plans to bomb the school and has made no such plans himself. Has the student committed a crime or an act of juvenile delinquency? If so what crime or crimes has he committed?
Populate the poll below with your answer or answers and keep reading for mine.
Loading ...
Venue Vexation
When you open a discussion by saying “I came across a really interesting venue issue the other day,” reactions typically range from “I doubt it” to “could we please talk about something else?”
But hear me out on this one — it’s a puzzler.