This legislative session the General Assembly authorized cities and counties to use automated traffic cameras and speed sensors to enforce speed limits in school zones. Enforcement of traffic laws through electronic means is not new to North Carolina; some local governments already use automated cameras to cite drivers who run red lights or pass stopped school buses. And more than 20 years ago, S.L. 2003-280 (H 562) authorized the City of Charlotte to use photographic speed-measuring systems during a three-year pilot program. Several other states, including Alabama, Illinois, Iowa, Ohio, Minnesota, and Washington, already use automated cameras and sensors to detect and sanction speeding. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration lists speed safety camera enforcement as an effective countermeasure to reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries, and researchers reported that the brief use of such systems in the Charlotte pilot program appeared “to have a positive effect on collisions and speed conformity.” This post will review the most recent North Carolina legislation, chaptered in S.L. 2025-47 (S 391), and consider questions that may arise for local governments interested in exercising this authority.
Three Updates to DWI Sentencing since 2018
We are putting the final touches on the new edition of the North Carolina Sentencing Handbook – publication date forthcoming! As part of revising and updating the DWI Sentencing portion, three updates stood out to me as warranting some more discussion. First, the legislature has expanded delegated authority for probation officers to include probationers sentenced for impaired driving under G.S. 20-179. Second, the Court of Appeals further clarified the presumption for unsupervised probation and requirements for transferring a probationer from supervised to unsupervised probation. Third, a new mitigating factor was added for voluntary pretrial installation of an ignition interlock device. Read on for more details.
Laws Taking Effect October 1
The North Carolina General Assembly has been quite busy this session. This year’s legislative updates span a range of topics within the world of criminal and motor vehicle law. Summaries of those enactments will be published on the School of Government website once the General Assembly adjourns for the session. For now, I’ll use this post to highlight the laws taking effect tomorrow, October 1, 2025.
News Roundup
This week, the General Assembly passed H 307, Iryna’s Law. The bill follows the murder of Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte last month. The measure is now with Governor Stein. If it becomes law, it would make a number of changes to proceedings involving pretrial release; would add a new aggravating sentencing factor; would alter the way magistrates may be disciplined; would require hearings on capital MARs normally be held within 24 months of filing; and would expand the permissible methods of execution, among other things. WRAL has some information about the bill’s progress through the legislature here, and a piece here exploring the decision that Governor Stein now must make to sign the bill, veto it, or allow it to become law without his signature. He has 10 days to decide. Keep reading for more news.
Revisiting Simeon v. Hardin: Part I, Pretrial Delay
Last year, I blogged about calendaring practices and whether it is appropriate for an ADA to unilaterally reset a matter in superior court after the court has approved a date for trial. In writing and teaching on calendaring authority, I am surprised how few practitioners are familiar with the landmark case of Simeon v. Hardin, … Read more
DSS Custody of a Juvenile in a Delinquency Case: When and Why It Cannot Be Combined with Secure Custody or YDC Commitment
The most recent Court of Appeals delinquency-related decision, In the Matter of D.H., ___ N.C.App. ___ (August 20, 2025), is one of a very few opinions that addresses a trial court’s order placing a juvenile in the custody of a department of social services (DSS custody) through a delinquency disposition. This area of law can be very confusing for practitioners. At its core, the juvenile is in DSS custody without a petition alleging abuse, neglect, or dependency; instead, there is a petition alleging the juvenile is delinquent. The possibility of DSS custody is also available in undisciplined juvenile proceedings. This blog provides a brief overview of when the court can issue such an order in a delinquency or undisciplined case and explains why simultaneous nonsecure and secure custody orders and dispositional orders that include both DSS custody and commitment to a Youth Development Center (YDC) are a legal impossibility.
Case Summaries: N.C. Court of Appeals (Sept. 17, 2025)
This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on September 17, 2025.
News Roundup
In response to the stabbing of Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte on August 22, North Carolina legislators are proposing various criminal justice reforms. Brittany noted last week that Republican legislators are advocating for various changes such as restarting the death penalty, ending cashless bail for those with felony convictions, and mandating that judicial officials consider homelessness and mental health when determining conditions of pretrial release.
This week, Democratic representative Laura Budd responded with a different slate of reforms, calling for funding for 5,000 additional local police officers statewide, along with 5,000 crisis assistance co-responders. She is also proposing that judicial officials initiate mental health commitments where appropriate and that people found incompetent to proceed be tried in state hospitals.
Yesterday, Chief Justice Paul Newby of the North Carolina Supreme Court issued an order creating a new Pretrial Release Task Force to survey pretrial release practices statewide and make recommendations as to best practices and potential legislative changes.
Read on for more criminal justice news.
Recent Legislative Changes Affecting Judicial Authority and Administration
House Bill 620, chaptered as S.L. 2025-54, enacted several changes affecting judicial authority and administration that may be of interest to practitioners generally. This post will review the legislation’s provisions affecting removal proceedings, the jurisdiction of specially assigned superior court judges, substitution of one trial judge for another, age limits for service as a trial judge, protocols for recovery courts, the disclosure of courtroom audio recordings, training and educational materials for jurors, and the appointment of magistrates.
