North Carolina Criminal Law Blog

In October, we administered a class on DWI substantive law and procedure for District Court Judges and Magistrates. As part of that program, I took a group of judges to […]

We are putting the final touches on the new edition of the North Carolina Sentencing Handbook – publication date forthcoming! As part of revising and updating the DWI Sentencing portion, three updates stood out to me as warranting some more discussion. First, the legislature has expanded delegated authority for probation officers to include probationers sentenced for impaired driving under G.S. 20-179. Second, the Court of Appeals further clarified the presumption for unsupervised probation and requirements for transferring a probationer from supervised to unsupervised probation. Third, a new mitigating factor was added for voluntary pretrial installation of an ignition interlock device. Read on for more details.

In February, I blogged about State v. Thomas, 295 N.C. App. 564 (2024), and whether law enforcement can review ankle-monitoring data without a warrant. The defendant in Thomas was on post-release supervision when officers pulled his location data, and the Court of Appeals upheld the warrantless retrieval of the data. However, questions remain about whether a warrant is necessary when a supervisee is on probation or pretrial release. Although North Carolina appellate courts have not directly addressed these questions, courts outside the state have in recent years. This post examines some of the cases.

I’m happy to announce the availability of the Second Edition of Probation Violations in North Carolina. The book is available in the School of Government bookstore, here. Even though the […]

This post is about the recurring issue of the requirement for a court to make findings of “good cause shown and stated” to preserve its jurisdiction to act on an alleged probation violation after the case has expired. The appellate courts have vacated many probation revocations for a lack of the required findings. The few affirmed cases show how to do things properly. Turns out, it’s not a demanding requirement.

Under G.S. 15A-1346(b), a sentencing court has the authority to order a probationary sentence to run consecutively to an undischarged term of imprisonment. Probation officers refer to that as a “contingent” sentence, because for them, it is—the start of the probation is contingent on the person’s release from prison. A contingent probationary sentence can be helpful when, for example, a defendant owes a lot of restitution, and the court wants to make sure there’s plenty of time on probation remaining after the defendant finishes any active sentences. To be clear, this is not a matter of whether the suspended term of imprisonment, if revoked, will run concurrently with or consecutively to some other term of imprisonment. This is about when the period of probation itself begins. A recent Court of Appeals decision changes things.

Last September, the Court of Appeals decided State v. Thomas, No. COA23-210, __ N.C. App. __ (2024), a case involving law enforcement’s retrieval of ankle monitor location data gathered while the defendant was on post-release supervision.

This is the first North Carolina appellate case to address whether it is constitutional for law enforcement to retrieve ankle monitor data without a warrant. This post will discuss the reasoning in Thomas and its implications for related questions.

A new case from the Supreme Court of North Carolina gives us a chance to revisit the issue of a defendant’s confrontation rights at a probation violation hearing.

Almost ten years after the Justice Reinvestment Act established a new statutory definition of absconding from probation, we’re starting to get a better sense of what behavior does and does not rise to the level of absconding.

The School’s two graphic novels about how sentences are served have been translated into Spanish.