G.S. 15A-245 provides that information other than that contained in a search warrant affidavit may not be considered by the issuing official in determining whether probable cause exists to issue the warrant unless the information is either recorded or contemporaneously summarized in the record or on the face of the warrant by the issuing official. This is commonly known as the “four corners” rule because the issuing official and later a judge at a suppression hearing may only consider information within the four corners of the search warrant (with the limited exception mentioned above). The issue does not arise often in appellate court opinions. However, it was involved in the June 21, 2016, North Carolina Court Appeals case of State v. Brown, available here, and is the subject of this post.
One Case, Two Ways of Authenticating Video
Technologists tell us that we are in the age of ubiquitous video. It seems that almost everything is being recorded. Naturally, this means that more and more video recordings are being introduced in court. A recent decision by the court of appeals is a helpful reminder of the two primary methods of authenticating video.
News Roundup
Last week the North Carolina Department of Public Safety announced the creation of a new Youthful Offender Program and the elimination of the use of solitary confinement for offenders under the age of 18 who are confined in adult facilities. An article from the News and Observer indicates that W. David Guice, Commissioner of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice, has said that solitary confinement doesn’t result in positive behavioral change and that prison officials have been reducing its use even with adult inmates. The mission of the Youthful Offender Program, which will be operated at Foothills Correctional Institution, is to “identify criminogenic risks and needs, and address those areas in order to promote public safety and enhance youth outcomes through education, behavioral, health treatment, life skills, and family/community reunification services.” Keep reading for more news.
Amendments to Notice and Demand Provisions for DWI Cases
No legislative session would be complete without amendments to the state’s DWI laws. The 2016 short session upholds this tradition by amending the procedures that govern the admissibility of chemical analyses in impaired driving trials in district and superior court.
A Jury of One’s Peers
Summer is here and everyone is feeling excited about fair cross-section claims. Or at least I am after hearing an enlightening presentation about them, described below.
One Phone Call
On TV and in the movies, arrestees are entitled to one phone call upon arrest. In real life, the situation is more complicated.
News Roundup
Sadly, the mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando early Sunday morning is the major criminal law news story this week. Forty-nine victims were killed, fifty-three others were wounded, and the gunman died in a shootout with police. The shooting is being characterized as a terror attack and a hate crime. The shooter reportedly pledged allegiance to ISIS and the group has taken credit for the attack. The attack is one of the deadliest criminal homicides in American history, but is not a unique example of hate-fueled violence in our country. Keep reading for more news.
Keeping a Person Under Supervision When There’s No Sentence Left to Suspend
When a person has so much jail credit that he has served his entire sentence of imprisonment, may he nonetheless be sentenced to probation? In other words, may a court sentence someone to probation when there is no sentence left to suspend?
State v. McGrady Confirms NC is a Daubert State: Now What?
The North Carolina Supreme Court held in State v. McGrady, __ N.C.___ (June 10, 2016), that Rule 702(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence incorporates the standard set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993). That’s what the court of appeals had already said, so it isn’t a big surprise. In McGrady, the application of Daubert led the state supreme court to conclude that the trial court did not err in excluding testimony from an expert in law enforcement training about the defendant’s conscious and unconscious responses to a perceived threat from the victim. McGrady’s analysis opens the door for reconsidering the admissibility of many types of expert testimony previously admitted as a matter of course, including expert testimony from law enforcement experts involving scientific and medical principles.