This post summarizes published criminal law and related cases released by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals during April 2025. Cases of potential interest to state practitioners are summarized monthly. Previous summaries of Fourth Circuit cases are available here.
New data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicates that drug overdose deaths in the U.S. declined significantly in 2024 as compared to 2023, reaching their lowest levels since 2019. Experts from the CDC state that increased funding from Congress has enhanced their ability to collect and analyze data, which in turn has allowed for more targeted and effective prevention efforts. Deaths from fentanyl fell by approximately 37%, while deaths from cocaine and psychostimulants also declined significantly. The declines were consistent across virtually all geographic regions.
Some experts attribute the changing trend to wider availability of the overdose-reversal drug naloxone as well as stepped-up treatment. Others contend the decline stems more from fewer people getting addicted in the first place.
Despite the encouraging news, drug overdoses remain the leading cause of death for individuals between the ages of 18 and 44.
Read on for more criminal law news.
An immigration detainer is one of the key tools that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) uses to apprehend individuals who come in contact with local and state law enforcement agencies. Sometimes, after a defendant has been arrested for a crime, an ICE officer will file an immigration detainer (Department of Homeland Security form I-247A) with the agency that has custody of the defendant. The detainer asks the agency to notify ICE when the defendant would otherwise be eligible for release and to hold the defendant for up to 48 hours thereafter to enable ICE to take custody of the defendant.
My colleague Jeff Welty blogged about immigration detainers several years ago. Recently, my colleagues and I have received a lot of questions about the scope of judicial officials’ authority when navigating immigration detainers. This post answers some of those questions.
A defendant who claims self-defense is generally permitted to offer evidence of the victim’s prior violent conduct if known to the defendant at the time defensive force was used. Such evidence is relevant to the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief in the need to use force. In State v. Ervin, No. COA24-650 (N.C. Ct. App. April 2, 2025), the trial court excluded as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial evidence offered by the defendant to show his state of mind at the time he killed his girlfriend’s brother, namely, evidence that the victim was in a gang. The Court of Appeals found no error, stating that evidence the defendant feared for his life because the victim was in a gang “does little to support his theory of self-defense.” This post examines the opinion in Ervin.
This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on May 7, 2025. These summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present.
The Alabama Governor signed legislation on Tuesday, establishing a new shark alert system that warns beachgoers when a shark has bitten someone in the vicinity. The system will issue a public notice to cellphones along the Alabama coast when there’s been a shark attack nearby. The law, named the “Lulu Gribbin Shark Alert System Act,” was inspired by a teenager who was one of three people bitten by a shark during a string of attacks last year. She lost her left hand and a portion of her right leg in the attack.
The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources will create rules for the new alert system. Read on for more news.
Post-release supervision has been mandatory for all felonies since 2011. But rarely if ever does anyone mention it when advising a defendant about a waiver of counsel or the consequences of a guilty plea. It’s not clearly statutorily required to do so. But the PRS is real, especially for crimes that require registration as a sex offender, where the term of supervised release is five years. G.S. 15A-1368.2(c). Is it a problem that it doesn’t get mentioned? Yes, according to a recent case from the Court of Appeals.
There are six sentencing levels for Driving While Impaired (DWI) convictions. A defendant is only exposed to the three most severe levels (A1, 1, and 2) if a judge or jury finds the existence of one or more “grossly aggravating factors” beyond a reasonable doubt. These factors are listed in G.S. 20-179(c). One of them is “[d]riving by the defendant at the time of the offense while the defendant’s driver’s license was revoked pursuant to G.S. 20‑28(a1).” Rather than applying to all revocations, G.S. 20-28(a1) applies when person’s license is revoked for an “impaired driving revocation.” At first glance, it appears any time a person is convicted of DWI, if their license was revoked for an impaired driving revocation, this grossly aggravating factor would apply and elevate their sentencing exposure—but that may not be the case. Read on for more.
Serving as a confidential informant can be dangerous, whether the informant is an adult or underage. As to minors working as informants, the International Association of Chiefs of Police recounts a cautionary tale:
In 1998, police in California arrested [17-year-old Chad] MacDonald on drug charges. He agreed to act as a CI, wearing a recording device during at least one drug buy and providing police with information about local drug trafficking. A short time later, he was found dead in an alley, apparently tortured and strangled, and his girlfriend was found raped and shot to death in a canyon. MacDonald’s death was believed to have been the result of his association with law enforcement as a CI.
Bearing these risks in mind, is it lawful for police to use minors as confidential informants? Is it a good idea? This post explores the topic.
The top national story this week is that the Supreme Court just heard oral argument in a case involving a shocking error by law enforcement. In 2017, an FBI SWAT team smashed its way into an Atlanta home and discharged a flashbang grenade in a pre-dawn raid. I believe the technical term for what happened is that they scared the bejeezus out of the couple and young child who were sleeping there . . . only to find out that they had entered the wrong residence. The warrant authorizing the intrusion was for 3741 Landau Lane, but they had entered 3756 Denville Trace. The residents sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the government contended that something called the “discretionary function exception” barred recovery, and lower courts ruled for the government. The Supreme Court granted review and heard arguments this week. According to SCOTUSblog, the Court “was sympathetic” to the residents but the outcome of the case remains unclear. Read on for more news.