blank

Pretrial Custody Release: Notes from Other Jurisdictions

When a person is arrested, a law enforcement officer must take that person before a judicial official without unnecessary delay. Subject to certain statutory exceptions, defendants charged with most noncapital offenses are entitled to pretrial release in accordance with G.S. 15A-534, which requires that at least one of five types of release be imposed before a defendant can be released. One type of release a judicial official may impose on a defendant is a “custody release,” under which a defendant is placed “in the custody of a designated person or organization agreeing to supervise him.” G.S. 15A-534(a)(3). This is the extent to which the custody release is described. The North Carolina general statutes do not provide additional guidance as to qualifications of a custodian, terms of the supervision, or penalties for improper supervision.

Other states have pretrial release statutes that are identical or substantially similar to that of North Carolina, explicitly providing for pretrial release of a defendant into the custody of an individual or organization. Many of those statutes—like that of North Carolina—do not offer further guidance regarding the custodian’s supervision of the defendant. However, there are a few that offer additional detail about the parameters of the custody release.

This post highlights custody release provisions in select states. While none of them is binding on this condition in our state, North Carolina judicial officials may find the information useful in crafting their local pretrial release policies.

Read more

Purses, Fanny Packs, Backpacks, and Duffel Bags: The Impact of Arizona v. Gant on Searches of Hand Luggage Incident to Arrest

Law enforcement officers have long been authorized to search a person incident to the person’s arrest. But the precise scope of that authority has shifted over time. The most recent major case in this area was Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), which placed new limits on an officer’s ability to search a motor vehicle incident to the arrest of an occupant. Whether Gant has any impact on an officer’s authority to search hand luggage like purses and backpacks has been the subject of considerable controversy. The issue is important given the ubiquity with which men as well as women carry backpacks, satchels, crossbody slings, and many other types of bags. This post discusses searches of such items incident to arrest.

Read more

News Roundup

If you thought it was only corner-cutting lawyers and tech-savvy college students that were relying on artificial intelligence to do their work for them, this week may force you to reconsider. Reuters reports here that “[f]ederal judges in Mississippi and New Jersey have withdrawn written rulings in a pair of unrelated lawsuits after lawyers in the cases said they contained factual inaccuracies and other serious errors.” Although the judges have not revealed how the “inaccuracies” and “errors” came to be, the types of mistakes involved will be familiar to anyone who uses generative AI or even reads about it: phantom quotations from real cases; citations to testimony from non-existent declarants; recitations of allegations that were never made; and fundamentally flawed legal “interpretation.” Keep reading for more news, curated and written up by a real, live human being.

Read more

blank

New Crime of Exposing a Child to Controlled Substances and Other 2025 Drug Law Changes

As regular readers know, the General Assembly passed a slew of statutes affecting our criminal law this summer, including controlled substances law.  In S.L. 2025-70 (S.B. 429), the legislature created the new offense of exposing a child to a controlled substance. The same session law increased the penalties for most fentanyl offenses. With  S.L. 2025-71 (S.B. 311), the legislature created several new crimes addressing the unauthorized possession or distribution of embalming fluid. These changes all become effective December 1, 2025. Read on for the details.   

Read more

blank

Filling in the Gaps: Changes on the Horizon for Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence

Several times a year, I teach different groups about criminal domestic violence laws in North Carolina. Last year, I highlighted the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (MCDV) under G.S. 14-32.5 in many of the sessions, but there were many unresolved questions. Earlier this month, the General Assembly passed Session Law 2025-70 (Senate Bill 429) which, among other things, answers many of those questions. This post reviews the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence and the pending changes to the law.

Read more

blank

New Free Webinar Friday on Recovery Courts and the Role of Defense Counsel

In case you missed it, I wanted to remind folks that the Public Defense Education team here, with support from the Office of Indigent Defense Services, is proud to offer a new webinar, Recovery Courts: An Overview for Defenders. Recovery courts (also known as treatment courts) have long played an important role in the criminal … Read more

Did the General Assembly Just Remove the “Nighttime” Element of Burglary?

A few weeks ago, the General Assembly passed, and the Governor signed into law, S.L. 2025-71. The bill makes quite a few changes to the criminal law. It creates new crimes, like a larceny offense specific to gift cards; enhances the penalties for existing crimes, including certain racing and reckless driving offenses; and creates sentencing enhancements when a gun is used in connection with specified drug crimes and offenses involving breaking or entering. Today’s post focuses on the bill’s amendment to G.S. 14-51, which addresses “first and second degree burglary.” Does the amendment quietly remove the  element of burglary that requires the offense to be committed in the nighttime?

Read more

News Roundup

The Alamo announced last week that it’s got Pee-wee’s stolen red bicycle, as foretold in the 1985 film “Pee-wee’s Big Adventure.” But the bike is not in the basement. The AP reports that the iconic bicycle will serve as a centerpiece in the Mays Family Legacy Gallery, part of a new visitor center and museum scheduled to open in fall 2027. Read on for more criminal law news.

Read more

blank

A New Way to Authenticate Video? State v. Windseth and the Business Records Exception

Special thanks to Sloan Godbey, Summer Law Fellow at UNC SOG, for their significant contributions to this post.

In March of last year, I did a thorough review of North Carolina cases addressing the authentication of surveillance video. I created a chart to understand what ingredients are adequate (and inadequate) to lay a foundation. That chart can be found here, and the related blog here.

However, a case came down in March of this year that raises significant questions about how video is authenticated, or at least introduces a new potential avenue for authenticating video. I’m afraid my cherished chart may soon be of limited utility. But such is the way the law develops!

Read more

blank

COA Shuts Down Second Amendment Challenges to Firearm by Felon

Back in February, the Court of Appeals decided State v. Nanes, COA24-487, ___ N.C. App. ___; 912 S.E.2d 202 (Feb. 19, 2025) (summarized here). The case considered and ultimately rejected facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenges to G.S. 14-415.1, our state prohibition on possession of firearms by a felon. Nanes squarely rejected the idea that G.S. 14-415.1 was facially unconstitutional but left open the possibility that the statute may be unconstitutional as applied to a different defendant. In State v. Ducker, COA24-373, ___ N.C. App. ___ ; ___ S.E.2d ___(May 7, 2025) (summarized here), the Court of Appeals closed the door on that possibility, ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to convicted felons and rejecting the need for a felony-by-felony analysis for as-applied Second Amendment challenges. Both Nanes and Ducker also considered and rejected related claims under Article I, Sec. 30 of the North Carolina Constitution. Today’s post examines these decisions.

Read more