This post summarizes published decisions from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decided in October, 2020, that may be of interest to state practitioners.
fourth circuit
A Conditional Discharge Is Not a Conviction for Purposes of the Federal Felon-in-Possession Law
In United States v. Smith, 939 F.3d 612 (4th Cir. 2019), the Fourth Circuit held that a defendant who received a conditional discharge for a prior felony was not “convicted” of that crime within the meaning of the federal felon-in-possession statute. He was therefore not a felon under that law, and thus not barred from possessing a firearm under it. The appellate court reversed his conviction. The case gives us an opportunity to review what we know (and don’t know) about the subsequent effect of conditional discharges and PJCs.
![blank](https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Dixon_Phil-1-150x150.jpg)
Case Summaries: Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals – November, 2019
This post summarizes published decisions from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that may be of interest to state criminal practitioners from November, 2019.
![blank](https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Dixon_Phil-1-150x150.jpg)
Case Summaries–Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (Oct. 2019)
This post summarizes published decisions from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that may be of interest to state criminal practitioners from October, 2019.
Is the Exigent Circumstances Doctrine an Exception to the Warrant Requirement, or Something More?
I have long thought of the exigent circumstances doctrine as an exception to the warrant requirement – it allows a search to be conducted when probable cause is present but it is impractical for officers to take the time to obtain a search warrant. That understanding was shaken when I read Phil Dixon’s summary of United States v. Curry, 937 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2019). The majority in Curry ruled that exigent circumstances allowed officers to search several men without probable cause or even reasonable suspicion because they were walking away from an area where shots had just been fired. In other words, the court took the position that exigent circumstances excused not only the lack of a warrant, but also the lack of individualized suspicion. Have I been mistaken all these years?