BLOG
Last year was a difficult one for North Carolina’s prison system. One correctional officer was killed by an inmate at Bertie Correctional Institution. Four staff members were killed during an attempted escape at Pasquotank. Today’s post summarizes some of the statutory and regulatory changes made in response to those incidents.
Back in February, I blogged about State v. Bridges, ___ N.C. App. ___, 810 S.E.2d 365 (Feb. 6, 2018), and drug identification. In short, Bridges held that the defendant’s out-of-court admission to an officer that a substance was “meth” was sufficient to meet the State’s burden of proving the identity of the substance, at least where the defendant failed to object to the testimony. This decision arguably signified an expansion of the Nabors exception to the Ward rule that a chemical analysis is generally required to establish drug identity (subject to other exceptions covered in the post). For a more thorough review of the topic, see that previous post. The Court of Appeals recently decided another drug ID case, State v. Osborne, ___ N.C. App. ___ (October 2, 2018), adding a new wrinkle to the rules.
It is settled law that the police may rummage through a person’s trash once it is put out to the curb for collection. “Trash pulls” are a routine part of drug investigations, where sufficient evidence of drug activity found in the garbage may support a search warrant for the associated residence. But how much evidence is enough? For example, if a person’s garbage contains the remains of a single marijuana cigarette, does that provide probable cause to believe that further evidence of drug activity will be present inside the house?
In the culmination of a nomination process that divided the nation, Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice on Saturday night. As USA Today reports, the final Senate vote was 50-48, with Joe Manchin the lone Democrat voting in favor of Kavanaugh’s appointment and Lisa Murkowski the lone Republican voting against. Kavanaugh was sworn in shortly after the vote by Chief Justice John Roberts and retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy in a private ceremony. Kavanaugh once served as a law clerk for Justice Kennedy, as did Justice Neil Gorsuch. In another overlap, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh each attended high school at Georgetown Preparatory School.
For U.S. readers, the title of this post may not seem quite right. You’ve heard of stops, based on either reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and frisks for weapons following a stop. You know about racial disparities in criminal justice data. But, what’s stop and account? Stop and search? And, how do they differ from stops and frisks? As I’m in London for the fall, the answer is pretty obvious that these terms refer to police authority in the UK. What may be less obvious is how this authority resembles the stopping powers of law enforcement officers in the US.
Like most of the rest of the country, I followed the recent confirmation hearings for Judge (now Justice) Kavanaugh with great interest.
As the readers of this blog already know, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school. Much of her testimony recounted her recollection of that event, but some of her testimony was of a different nature. In addition to telling the Committee what she recalled, Dr. Ford also described the biological and chemical processes of memory itself, such as the way that neurotransmitters encode memories into the hippocampus.
In other words, Dr. Ford testified in dual roles: she was both a fact witness and a de facto expert witness.
Most of us will never participate in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing, but a similar type of dual testimony can arise in criminal trials in state court, and it raises some interesting issues.
More than 200 district court judges from districts across North Carolina convened last week for their semiannual conference. Much of the continuing education agenda was dedicated to informing judges about the controlling law for the types of cases over which they preside—criminal, family and juvenile. But one session had a different focus. Instead of teaching judges how to “get outcomes right,” Judges Kevin Burke and Steve Leben talked to the group about how to handle procedural matters in a “way that enhances perceptions of fair treatment.” Kevin Burke & Steve Leben, The Evolution of the Trial Judge from Counting Case Dispositions to a Commitment to Fairness, 18 Widener L. J. 397, 403-04 (2009) [hereinafter Evolution]. The presenters made the case that institutionalizing principles and practices of procedural fairness can increase public support for and confidence in the courts, leading to greater acceptance of court decisions, greater public approval of the court system and increased compliance with court orders.
G.S. 90-108(a)(7) makes it a crime to maintain a store, dwelling, vehicle, boat, or other place for the use, storage, or sale of controlled substances. My NC Crimes book states the elements of the offense:
A person guilty of this offense
(1) knowingly
(2) keeps or maintains
(3) a store, shop, warehouse, dwelling house, building, vehicle, boat, aircraft, or other place
(4) (a) being resorted to by persons unlawfully using controlled substances
(b) being used for unlawfully keeping or selling controlled substances.
As the New York Times reports, seven law enforcement officers from Florence, South Carolina, were shot on Wednesday as they attempted to serve a search warrant. One officer was killed. Many of the details of the incident were unclear at the time of this writing, but it appears that the suspect, Fred Hopkins, opened fire with a high powered rifle from a tactically advantageous position, requiring that officers in the line of fire be rescued with a hardened military-style vehicle. The Charlotte Observer says that the officer who was killed, detective Terrence Carraway, spent 30 years with the Florence Police Department, was an Air Force veteran, and was known among his colleagues as the bravest officer on the force. Keep reading for more news.
The murders in London in 1888, attributed to Jack the Ripper, were bloody and bizarre. The Ripper tour the students and I took, graphically narrated by our guide, was stomach turning. The murders involved not only the slashing of several women’s throats but also the removal of their internal organs, including their uteruses. These grisly murders drew widespread public attention (and continue to fascinate people today). Why were such horrific crimes the subject of so much interest?