Servers who work for restaurants and bars that sell alcoholic beverages pursuant to an ABC permit are prohibited by G.S. 18B-305(a) from knowingly selling or giving alcoholic beverages to a person who is intoxicated. Violation of this provision is a Class 1 misdemeanor and may result in suspension of the establishment’s ABC permit. In cases where overserving results in injury, the restaurant or bar also may be liable for the damages that result. I’ve often wondered how servers know when to say when. After all, they are engaged in the business of selling alcoholic beverages—drinks that affect the brain functioning of everyone who consumes them. When does the statutory duty override their business interests?
Differences Between North Carolina and Federal Possession-of-Firearm by Felon Offenses Concerning the Prior Conviction Element Disqualifying Possession of a Firearm
Federal law and North Carolina law each prohibit in their own ways the possession of a firearm by a felon and, under federal law, certain domestic violence misdemeanors as well. A recent Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case ruled that a North Carolina felony conviction did not qualify to prove the federal offense of possession of a firearm by felon. The fact that this conviction likely would qualify for the North Carolina offense leads to this post that provides a general overview of the differences.
News Roundup
As previously noted by the News Roundup, the FBI was able to unlock an iPhone belonging to one of the shooters in the San Bernardino terror attacks without Apple’s assistance. Now that the FBI has this capability, local law enforcement agencies and district attorneys’ offices anticipate that they will ask the FBI to help access cellphones in investigations of criminal offenses, according to a report from the Charlotte Observer. The report indicates that about 20 percent of the phones examined by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department’s cybercrime unit are encrypted and the unit has been unable to access information on the devices. Keep reading for more news.
Fix It and Forget It—Without Making a Trip to the Courthouse
A few years ago, my babysitter texted me that she was going to be late because she had been pulled over by a police officer on the way to our house. When she arrived, I was in full-on substitute parent and attorney mode. Are you okay, I asked? What happened? She was nonplussed by the whole affair. Her registration had expired a few months before. She hadn’t noticed. The officer explained that if she renewed her registration and provided proof of that to the assistant district attorney on her court date, the charges would be dismissed. Oh, I said (slightly deflated that she needed absolutely no input from me—a so-called expert). But she did have to go to court to clear all this up. And that required parking in downtown Raleigh on a weekday, finding her way to the appropriate courtroom and standing in line to pay her ticket. A new procedure, soon to be rolled out statewide by the Administrative Office of the Courts, will do away with this last step, preventing hundreds of thousands of citizens from having to appear in court to have their motor vehicle law charges dismissed upon proof of compliance with the law.
Satellite-Based Monitoring after Grady
In Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 1368 (2015), the Supreme Court concluded that North Carolina’s satellite-based monitoring (SBM) program for sex offenders is a search. The Court left to the lower courts the question of whether the search is “unreasonable” under the Fourth Amendment. The lower courts have started to answer it.
The Results Are In: Trial Judges’ Views of IDS
In 2015, the Office of Indigent Defense Services (IDS) asked the School of Government to conduct an online survey of how superior and district court judges view IDS’s administration of indigent defense in North Carolina. Last week, the School issued its report of the survey results, Trial Judges’ Perceptions of North Carolina’s Office of Indigent Defense Services: A Report on Survey Results (March 2016) (referred to below as the Report). The verdict? Judges have a positive view of IDS’s performance, overall and in several key areas, but the results include a few warning signs for indigent defense.
Is It a Crime for a Transgendered Person to Use the “Wrong” Bathroom?
The General Assembly recently passed, and the Governor recently signed, HB 2 (S.L. 2016-3), popularly known as “the bathroom bill.” This post considers whether it is now a crime for a transgendered person to use the bathroom of the sex with which he or she identifies.
News Roundup
Local and national reaction to the General Assembly’s approval in a one-day special session last week of House Bill 2, the “Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act,” is dominating the news. The Charlotte Observer’s initial report about the bill being signed into law is available here. Over on the SOG Coates’ Canons blog, Trey Allen has a thorough overview of the new law and Norma Houston takes a look at its impact on city and county contracts. In connection with the Charlotte controversy, Jeff considered the criminal implications of restroom usage by the opposite sex in this post from last year.
Proponents have argued that the new law is intended to protect public safety, but critics say it is discriminatory. The News and Observer reports that Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Roy Cooper has announced that his office will not defend the law which has already been challenged in federal court. In response, Governor Pat McCrory released a video criticizing Cooper’s decision, and N.C. Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger called for Cooper to resign. Keep reading for more news.