One of the many unique features of the juvenile justice system is the law related to the permissible uses of detention. Called secure custody in the Juvenile Code, placement of a juvenile in detention is permitted only when specifically authorized by statute. This post reviews the legally allowable circumstances for the use of juvenile detention. If the situation of a particular juvenile does not match any of these circumstances, then the juvenile cannot be ordered to be held in a detention facility. Note that detention applies only to juveniles who are the subject of delinquency or undisciplined proceedings and is never permitted in an abuse, neglect, or dependency action.
Arson Law Revisions
The North Carolina General Assembly recently passed S.L. 2022-8 which makes various changes to the existing arson laws. The new criminal provisions go into effect on December 1, 2022 and apply to offenses committed on or after that date. The law includes a savings clause which provides that prosecutions for offenses committed before the effective date are not abated or affected by this act, and the statutes that would be applicable but for this act remain applicable to those prosecutions.
News Roundup
It is hard to find good help these days, with unemployment low and employers competing fiercely for workers. It’s well known that law enforcement agencies are having trouble recruiting sworn officers, but WFMY reports here that jails are having trouble hiring enough detention officers as well. In Forsyth County, 77 out of 249 positions are vacant. Other counties are also in dire straits. Corrections 1 noted a few weeks ago that Mecklenburg County was short more than 100 detention officers. Keep reading for more news.
Case Summaries – N.C. Court of Appeals (June 21, 2022)
This post summarizes published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on June 21, 2022. These summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present. The summary of Sanders was prepared by Jeff Welty.
Case Summaries – Supreme Court of N.C. (June 17, 2022)
This post summarizes published criminal decisions from the Supreme Court of North Carolina released on June 17, 2022. These summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to present. These summaries were prepared by School of Government Legal Research Associate Alex Phipps, except for the summaries of Conner (prepared by Shea Denning) and Kelliher (prepared by Jamie Markham).
Suing the Police over Tight Handcuffs
On Friday, the Supreme Court of North Carolina decided a civil case in which an arrestee alleged that he was handcuffed too tightly by the arresting officer. The court allowed the suit to proceed over the officer’s claim of public official immunity. This post provides more detail about that case and about the law of tight handcuffing more broadly.
News Roundup
Many Americans have been paying close attention to the proceedings of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. Among the interested observers are federal prosecutors at the United States Department of Justice, who are increasingly frustrated with the Committee’s refusal to provide DOJ with transcripts of the Committee’s witness interviews. Politico reports here that DOJ thinks the transcripts may be useful in its effort to prosecute those who engaged in criminal activity during the attack. DOJ also views the Committee’s selective release of transcripts during televised hearings as fueling defense arguments that the Committee is making it impossible for defendant to get a fair trial.
Enforcing Ignition Interlock Requirements
I wrote last week about changes to North Carolina’s ignition interlock statutes that were effective June 1, 2022. As I noted in that post, one of those changes was to eliminate the time and purpose restrictions that otherwise apply to limited driving privileges if ignition interlock is required as a condition and the person is driving a designated vehicle equipped with ignition interlock. Another was to require vendors to waive a portion of ignition interlock costs for a person ordered by a court or required by statute to install ignition interlock but who is unable to afford the system. These changes and others enacted by S.L. 2021-82 were recommended by the Ignition Interlock Subcommittee of the Statewide Impaired Driving Task Force as part of a package of reforms designed to expand the use of ignition interlock and, in turn, to improve traffic safety. It remains to be seen whether the legislation will have that effect.
One determinant may be whether drivers see the benefit of broader driving privileges as being worth the cost of ignition interlock. A judge may be more likely to impose the condition when it is sought by an applicant. Another factor may be whether judges believe that ignition interlock is an effective countermeasure to impaired driving (researchers in fact identify interlock as among the leading countermeasures) and whether ignition interlock requirements in limited driving privileges are enforced in practice. This post addresses this last issue by reviewing the mechanisms for enforcing ignition interlock requirements and the sanctions for violation of ignition interlock conditions imposed by a court as part of a limited driving privilege.
The Court Appearance Project
Diverse teams of justice system stakeholders in New Hanover, Orange, and Robeson counties participated in the North Carolina Court Appearance Project, seeking to improve local court appearance rates and develop better responses to nonappearances. The teams examined local court and jail data, reflected on court practices and procedures, and crafted policy solutions suited to the needs of their communities and courtrooms. We recently released a report describing the project teams’ initial efforts. This post summarizes key takeaways from that report.