Investigative Court Orders (February 13, 2009)
Jeff Welty
I am teaching today, so I only have time for a quick post on a subject that crops up from time to time: how can the state compel access to […]
U Visas for Undocumented Crime Victims (February 12, 2009)
Jeff Welty
Criminal lawyers are paying more attention to immigration issues in cases where the defendant is not a United States citizen, and that’s a good thing. But my sense is that […]
Searching Probationers (February 11, 2009)
Jeff Welty
The News and Observer ran a story today about a piece of proposed legislation that would allow any law enforcement officer to search any probationer, for any reason, at any […]
“Obtaining” Property for Another (February 10, 2009)
Jeff Welty
Valentine’s day is coming up, which got me thinking about a fact pattern I ran into a while back. Dan wants to get his girlfriend, Ann, a present — say, […]
Going off the Grid (February 9, 2009)
Jamie Markham
In addition to sentencing in the mitigated range of the Structured Sentencing grid, there are two ways defendants can receive more lenient punishment in North Carolina: extraordinary mitigation and substantial […]
Sexting (February 6, 2009)
Jeff Welty
The News and Observer has had several interesting criminal justice articles over the past few days — including one about the great potted plant caper, available here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2932/story/1394388.html — but the one […]
Upcoming Training Opportunities (February 5, 2009)
Jeff Welty
Both prosecutors and defense lawyers have some training opportunities coming up here at the School of Government. Since this blog is intended to be of interest to both sides (as […]
Consecutive Sentences, Not Put on Ice (February 4, 2009)
Jamie Markham
A number of people have asked me whether the United States Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Oregon v. Ice (07-901) has any impact on North Carolina sentencing law. The short […]
Sex Offenders, Online Identifiers, and the First Amendment (February 3, 2009)
Jeff Welty
A federal judge in Utah recently invalidated the part of Utah’s sex offender registry that requires each registrant to provide his “[i]nternet identifiers and . . . addresses . . . [and] the name . . . of all websites on which the sex offender is registered.” Doe v. Shurtleff, 2008 WL 4427594 (D. Ut. Sept. 15, 2008) (quoting Utah Code Ann. § 77-27-21.5(12)(i) & (j)). This raises some questions about the constitutionality of North Carolina’s new requirement that sex offenders provide “[a]ny online identifier that the person uses or intends to use.” G.S. 14-208.7(b)(7) (eff. May 1, 2009). . .
Herring, Again (February 2, 2009)
Jeff Welty
Several days ago, I wrote a post about Herring v. United States and whether it is merely the first step in a significant narrowing of the exclusionary rule. It’s an […]