December 1 is approaching, which means that many of the changes enacted by the General Assembly this session will be taking effect soon. Among the pending changes are those enacted by Iryna’s law (H 307), which I covered in greater detail in an earlier blog post. This follow-up post focuses on the new category of “violent offenses.”
The 2025 legislative session resulted in a small number of changes to the laws that govern delinquency proceedings. They include extended terms of probation and post-release supervision in some cases, […]
This post summarizes published criminal opinions released by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on November 19, 2025. In defendant’s trial for possession with intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver […]
Earlier this week, the Times reported that the federal prosecution of former FBI director James Comey for making false statements to and obstruction of Congress may be in jeopardy after […]
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article 1, Section 26 of the North Carolina Constitution prohibit the exercise of peremptory challenges to strike prospective jurors based on their race. […]
In U.S. v. Johnson, 148 F.4th 287 (4th Cir. 2025) (summarized here), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently rejected a Fourth Amendment challenge to a canine sniff at the front door of the defendant’s apartment. My colleagues Jeff Welty and Shea Denning have blogged about the issue of curtilage and multi-unit dwellings like apartment buildings in the past (here, here, and here), but Johnson is a good refresher on those principles. Read on for the details.
I recently participated in a WFAE radio show about law enforcement use of drones, along with a captain from the Winston-Salem Police Department and an advocate from the ACLU. I thought the discussion was excellent, with a nice balance of perspectives. In the course of preparing for the program, I did an environmental scan about how law enforcement officers are currently using drones, and looked for court opinions about some of the legal questions presented by drone use. This post summarizes what I learned before and during the show.
After 43 days, the government shutdown has ended. President Trump signed the spending bill late Wednesday night, funding the federal government through January 2026. Along with resuming funding for food stamps and federal worker salaries, the bill includes provisions allowing senators to sue the Justice Department as well as broader criminalization of hemp derived products. Retroactive to January of 2022, senators who have had phone records obtained without notification by the Justice Department would be permitted to sue for up to $500,000. While it does not mention special counsel Jack Smith’s probe of the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, the provision would apply to eight senators who had their phone records obtained as part of the probe in 2023. The spending bill also changes the lawful THC content threshold for hemp derived products from 0.3% Delta 9 THC to 0.4mg of any variant of THC. Farmers and legislators from around the country have voiced concern that this could effectively eliminate over 95% of products currently sold lawfully. Read on for more criminal law news.
I’m pleased to share that the eighth edition of North Carolina Crimes: A Guidebook on the Elements of Crime is now available. 
Fourth Amendment rights are enforced primarily through the exclusionary rule, which provides that evidence derived from an unconstitutional search or seizure is generally inadmissible at trial. Under the good faith exception, however, evidence will not be suppressed when the investigating officer reasonably relied upon prior judicial authorization for the search, such as a subsequently invalidated search warrant. Until recently, under State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709 (1988), the general warrants clause of the state constitution (Art. 1, § 20) also yielded an exclusionary rule but without any good faith exception. In State v. Rogers, No. 377PS22 (N.C. Oct. 17, 2025), the North Carolina Supreme Court explicitly overruled Carter, concluding that there is a good faith exception to any exclusionary rule arising from the state constitution. This post considers the opinion in Rogers.