Estimating Earnings Impact of Driver’s License Revocations in North Carolina

and

In North Carolina, driver’s licenses are revoked for failure to appear in court (FTA) and failure to pay court-ordered monetary obligations (FTP).

Not having a valid driver’s license is at best an inconvenience—relying on others to drive to get groceries—but at worst can have a major impact on life—losing a job that requires driving.

To get a handle on the consequences of losing a license, we were asked to provide a high-level estimate of the earnings impact of revocations due to FTP or FTA.

The result? We found that the statewide estimated earnings loss in 2024 dollars one year after revocation is between $6.5 and $8.8 billion (Figure 1).

The North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles (NC DMV) reports that as of December 31, 2020, 996,000 people had active driver’s license revocations for FTA and FTP. These revocations occurred over time. To estimate earnings impact, we assume that about half of those people—500,000—were working at the time of the revocation and earning the North Carolina median wage ($42,095/year). Based on other research, we made two additional assumptions to assess the impact of revocation on earnings one year later. First, that 9% to 12% of people lost their jobs and were unemployed. And second, that those who were employed experienced an earnings reduction of 24% to 43%.

Even if we reduce the median wage to $30,000/year—to account for the fact that people with an FTA or FTP may earn less than the statewide median wage—the estimated earnings impact is between $4.6 and $6.3 billion.

Figure 1. Estimated earnings impact of revoking driver’s licenses for FTA and FTP

For details about how we computed this estimate, see the notes to our briefing paper here.

blank

News Roundup

Former President Donald Trump was found guilty of 34 felonies in his “hush money” trial in New York yesterday, making him the first former president in U.S. history to be convicted of a crime. On their second day of deliberations, the jury found that Trump illegally falsified business records to cover up a $130,000 payment to an adult film star before the 2016 election. He could face up to four years in prison and a $5,000 fine for each count and is set to be sentenced on July 11.

Read more

Confidential Informants, Motions to Reveal Identity, and Discovery: Part II, What Statutes Apply?

In Part I of a series of posts on confidential informants, I revisited the landmark case of U.S. v. Roviaro, which began when a Chicago police officer hid in the trunk of an informant’s car to listen in on a heroin deal. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the officer in the trunk was no substitute for the confidential informant (“CI”) in the driver’s seat and required disclosure of the CI’s identity to the defense. I also introduced the basic dichotomy set out in Roviaro: generally, where the CI is more of a tipster, the CI’s identity need not be revealed, but where the CI is an active participant, the defense is entitled to it. The constitutional underpinnings of this distinction, based on due process and confrontation principles, continue to guide courts today, although the analysis has evolved.

This second post will address the North Carolina statutes at play. These statutes complicate and refine the basic constitutional question of whether fundamental fairness requires the State to turn over the CI’s identity.

Read more

blank

Disposition Continuance to Provide for Time in Secure Custody Not Allowed

Are there limits on the court’s ability to continue the dispositional hearing in a delinquency case? The Court of Appeals recently identified one limit In re D.R.F., Jr., ____ N.C.App. _____ (May 7. 2024).  The court held that a continuance for the sole purpose of placing the juvenile in secure custody as punishment before disposition is not a valid basis for that continuance and constitutes an abuse of discretion.

Read more

News Roundup

The trial of former U.S. President Donald Trump for alleged falsification of business records is nearing its conclusion. The prosecution’s key witness, Michael Cohen, was on the stand for four days, describing what he and Trump discussed back in 2016 and 2017 when Cohen served as Trump’s lawyer. He outlined a plan to conceal a sexual affair from the public by making hush-money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Trump’s intent in making these payments, and whether a falsification occurred in furtherance of another crime, are the central questions of the trial. The defense engaged in a lengthy cross-examination to undermine Cohen’s credibility.

The prosecution then rested, and the defense presented the testimony of one witness, also an attorney. The witness, Robert Costello, had previously given legal counsel to Cohen after Cohen’s house was raided by FBI agents. After the defense rested, the parties debated the appropriate jury instructions. Closing arguments are scheduled for Tuesday, and the jury could begin deliberations Wednesday.

Read more

blank

When May the State Use Evidence of a Defendant’s Silence Before Trial?

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about the prohibition against the State commenting on a defendant’s failure to testify, or, in other words, a defendant’s silence at trial. Such comments are disallowed as they abridge a defendant’s federal and state constitutional rights not to be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence. This post addresses a related issue:  When and how may the State in a criminal trial use evidence of a defendant’s silence before trial to establish a defendant’s guilt or impeach a defendant’s credibility? (This is not the first time we have written about this topic on the blog. Jessie Smith did so here in 2012; nevertheless, a few relevant cases have been decided since then, and I thought it would be helpful to revisit the issue.)

Read more