Recent blog posts - 52 of 395

Because the State’s ability to prove impairment in prosecutions for driving while impaired often turns on whether the officer had probable cause to arrest — and thereafter test — the defendant, probable cause to make a warrantless arrest is a frequently litigated issue in DWI cases. While for many years there was a dearth of case law exploring the hard calls in this area, that trend has changed. In several arguably close cases over the past decade, the appellate courts have considered whether impaired driving arrests by law enforcement officers were supported by probable cause. See State v. Parisi, 372 N.C. 639 (2019) (driver’s admission to drinking, his red and glassy eyes, his odor of alcohol, and multiple indicators of impairment on field sobriety tests established probable cause; affirming court of appeals’ opinion reversing trial court); State v. Lindsey, 249 N.C. App. 516 (2016) (odor of alcohol on driver’s breath, red and glassy eyes, admission to drinking, and five clues of impairment from horizontal gaze nystagmus test provided probable cause; affirming trial court order denying motion to suppress); State v. Overocker, 236 N.C. App. 423 (2014) (light odor of alcohol and consumption of three alcoholic drinks in four-hour period were insufficient to establish probable cause; affirming trial court order granting motion to suppress); and State v. Townsend, 236 N.C. App. 456 (2014) (driver’s odor of alcohol, positive results on portable breath test, bloodshot eyes, and signs of impairment while performing field sobriety tests established probable cause; affirming trial court’s denial of motion to suppress).

Last December, the North Carolina Supreme Court added to that list with its opinion in State v. Woolard, ___ N.C. ___, 894 S.E.2d 717 (2023) reversing, upon certiorari review, the trial court’s determination that an arresting officer lacked probable cause for impaired driving. This post will review Woolard, its holding, and its path to the state’s highest court.

It is my pleasure to announce that Daniel “Danny” Spiegel has joined the Courts Group faculty here at the School of Government as an expert in criminal law. We are thrilled to have him as a part of the team. Danny’s work will primarily focus on defender issues, but he will also teach and advise judicial officials and other court system actors. I expect Danny will soon be a regular voice on the blog and presenter at SOG trainings. Please join me in giving Danny a warm welcome to the SOG!

Reminiscent of the Wars of the Roses, our Supreme Court’s recent opinion in State v. Lancaster, __ N.C. __, 895 S.E.2d 337 (2023), concerns an offense first codified in 1328 during the reign of Edward III.  The common law crime of going armed to the terror of the public, our Supreme Court there held, does not require allegation or proof that the conduct occurred on a public highway; hence, there was no facial defect in an indictment omitting this putative element.  Other elements not explicitly stated in the same indictment – for the purpose of terrifying, in a manner that would naturally terrify – were “clearly inferable.”  This post examines Lancaster to ascertain the direction of our Supreme Court’s avowed retreat from archaic pleading requirements.

Michael Lewis is a celebrated author whose work has repeatedly topped the best-seller lists. His most famous book is Moneyball, which chronicles the analytics revolution in baseball. But his most controversial – perhaps even his most hated – book is also his most recent: Going Infinite, which chronicles the rise and fall of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX and the exploits of its founder, Sam Bankman-Fried.

Criminal law news is seldom cheery. That said, I am particularly saddened to begin the first news roundup of 2024 with a story of a school shooting.

School was set to resume yesterday in Perry, Iowa, following the winter break. But before the opening bell rang at Perry High School on Thursday morning, authorities say 17-year-old Dylan Butler, a student at the school, opened fire, killing a sixth-grader and wounding five others. Law enforcement officials reported that Butler was armed with a pump-action shotgun and a small handgun and that he was found dead inside the school with a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

The Associated Press reports that the shooting “occurred in the backdrop of Iowa’s looming first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses.” GOP candidate Vivek Ramaswamy had a campaign event that was scheduled to occur yesterday morning less than two miles away from Perry High School. He canceled the event to hold a prayer and discussion with area residents.

Continue reading for more criminal law news.

This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals released on December 19, 2023, and January 2, 2024. These summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present.

This post summarizes the published criminal opinions from the Supreme Court of North Carolina released on December 15, 2023. These summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present.

This post summarizes published criminal law and related cases released by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals during November 2023. Cases of potential interest to state practitioners are summarized monthly. Previous summaries of Fourth Circuit cases are available here.

The following post is authored by SOG faculty member Kristi Nickodem. A version of this post is also available on the Coates’ Canons and On the Civil Side SOG blogs.   

When abuse or neglect leads to the death of a child, concerned citizens, public officials, and members of the media often have questions about the circumstances leading up to the fatality. A North Carolina statute, G.S. 7B-2902, requires any public agency—including law enforcement agencies and departments of social services—to disclose a written summary of particular “findings and information” upon request with respect to child fatalities that meet certain criteria. Within five working days of when a public agency receives such a request, the agency is required to consult with the district attorney who is involved in the case concerning the child’s fatality or near fatality to determine what information may be released. This blog post discusses the responsibilities of public agencies to disclose information under G.S. 7B-2902, circumstances in which information may be withheld from public disclosure, and the role of the district attorney in consulting on what information may be released.

This will be the last news roundup of the year. We’ll likely have a post or two early next week and then go dark for the holidays, returning in early January. We appreciate your readership this year, as well as your feedback, your topic suggestions, and all the other ways that you participate in the blog community. However you may celebrate the season, we wish you a happy and restful break. Read on for a selection of the week’s news.