A UNC School of Government Blog
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.
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:
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.
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?
This week the ACLU of North Carolina and North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services filed a class action lawsuit in state court arguing that solitary confinement practices used in the state’s prisons constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the state constitution. In the suit, the plaintiffs say that people in solitary confinement “face substantial risks of serious psychological and physiological harm” and ask for a court order ceasing current practices and directing the formulation of new ones that comply with the constitution. Two of the named plaintiff inmates each have been in solitary confinement for more than 10 years; about 3,000 inmates were in solitary confinement at the end of July of this year. The News Roundup previously has noted that the Department of Public Safety has been investigating ways to reduce the use of solitary confinement. Keep reading for more news.
This post summarizes published criminal decisions (and two other decisions of note) from the North Carolina Court of Appeals decided on October 15, 2019.
In legislation that may have escaped the notice of some criminal law practitioners, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted significant reforms this year to the state’s occupational licensing laws. The reforms, which apply to applications for licensure submitted on or after October 1, 2019, significantly lessen legal barriers to obtaining an occupational license for people with a criminal conviction. The legislation, S.L. 2019-91 (H 770), received bipartisan support, passing both chambers unanimously.
The School of Government and the North Carolina Judicial College are pleased to announce our second annual CLE event. Reviews from last year’s event were extremely positive so we’re doing it again! It’s an event for everyone, with outstanding teachers addressing topics selected to be of interest to anyone practicing law. The event will offer … Read more
Last week the North Carolina State Bar was the target of a ransomware attack, a type cyberattack where the attacker gains control of a computer system and demands a ransom in exchange for relinquishing control of the system. As the State Bar explained in a statement late last week, the attack began as an infiltration of a single server and quickly spread to other servers, encrypting systems running on the servers as it went. It appears that personally identifiable information was not compromised by the ransomware, but the State Bar website and its membership and CLE portals were disabled. As of Tuesday, the website was back up and limited access to the portals was restored, though any changes made to the membership and CLE databases from September 24 through September 30 were lost. Keep reading for more news.
