Charlotte Criminal Lawyer Blog

North Carolina Legislature Considers Changes to State Drunk Driving Laws :: Charlotte North Carolina DWI DUI Criminal Attorney Lawyer

Published on: March 12, 2013 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “What should I do if I have been pulled over and I have been drinking?”

With the 2013 legislative session in North Carolina well underway, lawmakers in the state are moving forward with several important changes to the criminal justice system that deserve mention.

Perhaps most importantly is House Bill 43, which would require the use of ignition interlock devices for anyone who has been convicted of drunk driving. Should the bill move forward it would make North Carolina only the 15th state in the nation to mandate the use of such ignition interlock devices for even first-time offenders.

The ignition interlock devices work by testing a person’s blood-alcohol level before the car they are driving can start. The state’s current law says that only repeat drunk drivers and first-time offenders with especially elevated BAC levels are required to use the devices.

A major push by various groups in the state has ensured that the issue received substantial attention in the legislature this session. The state Mothers Against Drunk Driving chapter has endorsed the ignition interlock bill and has asked its members to contact state lawmakers to express their support. The bill right now has bipartisan support and is still being studied before a final upcoming vote is scheduled.

Supreme Court Hears Case About Police Power To Detain Suspects :: Charlotte North Carolina DWI DUI Criminal Attorney Lawyer

Published on: March 7, 2013 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “Can I be arrested without evidence against me?”

An important decision was handed down by the Supreme Court last week when the justices decided that police officers do not have the authority to stop and hold those who have already left a residence that they’ve come to search.

The case, about the limits of an officer’s ability to hold a possible suspect related to a search, was decided 6-3. Bailey v. U.S., forced the Court to consider the precedent set by an earlier case from 1981, Michigan v. Summers, which created the right for police officers to stop those in a residence while they are there to execute a search warrant. The Summers case allowed officers to temporarily hold those who were on the premises even if they did not have a specific reason to suspect them of having engaged in any illegal activities.

This idea of holding someone on the premises of a search was put to the test in the recent Bailey case which began in 2005. Officers in upstate New York stopped a man, Chunon Bailey, and attempted to hold him even though he was more than a mile away from the residence the officers had been sent to search. Officers who stopped the man found evidence that linked him to drugs and weapons later located in the house.

The Supreme Court heard the case and disagreed with prosecutors who argued the principle set forth in Summers ought to be extended to the facts of the present case. The justices instead decided that the distance, more than a mile away from the residence, was too great to give the police the power to hold someone they suspected of being connected to the house. Justice Kennedy said that the rationale for allowing such detentions disappears when suspects are so physically removed from the house in question.

Police Dog “Statement” results in a formal complaint :: Charlotte North Carolina DWI DUI Criminal Attorney Lawyer

Published on: March 5, 2013 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “Should I talk to the police?”

We recently discussed a U.S. Supreme Court case involving police dogs. The case revolved around how much information concerning the drug-sniffing dog’s abilities prosecutors ought to reveal before their information can be deemed relevant to show probable cause for searching a vehicle.

Building on a similar police dog theme, this week’s post concerns an odd story out of England about one dog’s sought after testimony. The case began when the Crown Prosecution Service in West Midlands, England (basically the English version of the district attorney’s office) asked that a local police department provide a statement from one of the people listed on a police report as a witness to a crime. The prosecutor’s office mistakenly thought the witness’ name was “PC Peach”, assuming it was a pseudonym meant to protect the real person’s identity.

The problem was that “PC Peach” was actually “PD Peach,” with PD standing for “police dog.” Despite being told of the misunderstanding, the prosecutor’s office continued to demand that it receive a statement from “the witness.” road with police tape.bmp

Fed up with what they deemed careless prosecutors, one of Peach’s handlers crafted a statement in the voice of the dog and sent it to the prosecutors. The statement was quite concise and to the point: “I chase him. I bite him. Bad man. He tasty. Good boy. Good boy Peach.” To top it off, the pithy witness statement was then signed with a black paw print.

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Sniff Test For Drug Dogs :: Charlotte North Carolina DWI DUI Criminal Attorney Lawyer

Published on: February 28, 2013 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “Do I have to perform the field sobriety tests when I’m pulled over for DWI in NC?”

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a ruling that sides with police dogs after the Florida Supreme Court attempted to impose harsh standards on using drug-sniffing dogs to justify a car search.

The case involved a drug dog named Aldo who did his duty and alerted his handler that that there was possible contraband in a truck that had been detained during a traffic stop. When a search was performed the police failed to find any of the drugs that Aldo had been trained to locate. Instead, they discovered a variety of ingredients that were used to make meth. Aldo’s handler guessed that the dog might have been responding to meth residue on the door handles to the vehicle. Though Aldo was trained to detect meth itself, the dog did not have the ability to detect the individual components that were in the truck.
Dog Face.jpg
The Florida Supreme Court deemed the search unconstitutional, saying that prosecutors failed to show Aldo was reliable enough to prove that there was probable cause to search the truck. The Florida High Court said prosecutors should have introduced the dog’s training records and field performance reviews as well as other objective evidence that could demonstrate Aldo’s reliability.

The Supreme Court flatly rejected such a strict standard, voting unanimously to overrule the requirements imposed by the Florida Supreme Court. The justices decided that dog-sniffing evidence should be handled like all other evidence related to probable cause and defendants should be given the chance to challenge the reliability of a dog’s senses given the “totality of the circumstances.”

North Carolina Underwear Thief Could Face Felony Larceny Charges :: Charlotte North Carolina DWI DUI Criminal Attorney Lawyer

Published on: February 26, 2013 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “What is the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony?”

Stealing underwear in North Carolina is no laughing matter. That’s the moral of a recent story out of Gastonia where police are actively searching for a person who is reported to have absconded with hundreds of pairs of women’s underwear from a Victoria’s Secret in a local mall.
Police say that the theft took place in Westfield Eastridge Mall and happened between 6:30 and 7:30 in the evening. The Victoria’s Secret reported having 200 pairs of women’s underpants stolen. The underwear had an estimated value of $2,500.

Authorities have said they do not have a description of the suspect yet, but will be actively reviewing security footage to try and locate the thief. Though the matter sounds somewhat ridiculous, such a theft is taken very seriously in North Carolina.
Underwear Models.jpg
According to North Carolina General Statutes Section 14-70, laws in the state make no distinction between petty or grand larceny charges. Instead, larceny charges are based on the value of goods stolen and the manner in which they were taken.

12-Year-Old Girl Leads Charlotte Police On Midnight Car Chase :: Charlotte North Carolina DWI DUI Criminal Attorney Lawyer

Published on: February 21, 2013 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “Can I be arrested without evidence against me?”

Police in Charlotte have said that a 12-year-old girl will be charged after leading police on a chase late at night across several local interstates. A pre-teen in a police car chase? You heard that right.

CMPD says the girl managed to drive more than 50 miles from her home in Gaffney, SC all the way to the I-85/I-77 interchange here in Charlotte, North Carolina. Police say that the girl had threatened to run away before but had never followed through with her threats until earlier this week. The girl is thought to have been unhappy after her father won custody of the girl from her mother who lives in Myrtle Beach. The girl had no friends in Gaffney and wanted to go back there when she stole a neighbor’s vehicle and fled. Her father believes she was headed to Myrtle Beach, but that she got lost along the way and ended up in Charlotte instead.
Police Light.jpg
The girl was able to get the pickup truck by going to a nearby VFW Hall where a neighbor had left his vehicle after he broke the key off in the ignition. The girls’ father said she was last seen doing chores around the house a little after 11 p.m. when he fell asleep on the couch. He awoke a half hour later and discovered she was missing. He drove around town for about an hour before flagging down a cop and alerting the officer to his missing daughter.

Charlotte Police Have Powerful Tool To Extract Info From Suspects’ Cellphones :: Charlotte North Carolina DWI DUI Criminal Attorney Lawyer

Published on: February 19, 2013 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “Do I need to hire an attorney if I have been falsely accused?”

A recent incident involving criminals robbing a hotel in South Charlotte was solved thanks to the help of technology. While the cameras at the hotel were useful, another device that proved a great benefit to officers was the suspect’s own cellphone. The reason is that the suspected criminal’s cellphone was used by police to place him at the scene of several crimes at exactly the moment when the offenses occurred.

Officers with Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department’s Westover Division say that using data contained in the suspect’s cellphone allowed them to clear more than a dozen thefts from their books. They said that before the records were reviewed they received the proper warrants to access his cellphone data. A spokesman said, “The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department always obtains a court order in compliance with state and federal law before tracking mobile phones except in cases involving exigent circumstances.” Cell phone 2.jpg

So far the department has been quiet about this tactic, afraid that warning potential criminals will cut down on the usefulness of the tool. Despite that, locals with experience in criminal justice have come forward to say the practice is actually quite widespread. CMPD has revealed for instance that it has a contract with a company called Cellebrite which makes a box that can be connected to thousands of different cellphone models and even tablet computers and then extract current and deleted information.

A local professor who teaches cell phone forensics says that technology in existence today is precise enough to detect even slight changes in location. Officers plug a device into the cellphone which then extracts data that can later be accessed on a department computer.

North Carolina Police Departments Move To Create Yet Another DNA Database :: Charlotte North Carolina DWI DUI Criminal Attorney Lawyer

Published on: February 14, 2013 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “Can I be arrested without evidence against me?”

News out of several North Carolina counties reveal a big push across the state to create yet another DNA database. Rather than a government database holding DNA evidence for those convicted of violent crimes, this database will be privately operated and exist to hold DNA material from property crimes.

Alamance County, Greensboro, Winston-Salem and Wilmington are among the departments embracing the new plan. A total of at least eight agencies have committed to the program and another 20 North Carolina police departments have expressed an interest.

DNA Vial.jpg The company involved, DNA:SI Labs, is building a database that is meant to solve petty crimes and property crimes, such as car thefts and home break-ins. Many of these crimes take place across various cities and the hope is that by collecting DNA evidence at several scenes, police officers will be able to link together crimes and have a better chance of catching the perpetrators.

The new database will not change the current DNA collection practices for violent crimes, which will still be sent to the North Carolina State Crime Laboratory and the state Bureau of Investigation. The new system, The Local DNA Index System (LODIS), will also be much more responsive than the existing system. Rather than waiting as long as year to get results, DNA:SI Labs says that it will return results within 30 days of submission. The ability to move fast is important in preventing future crimes.

General Assembly Proposal To Cut Judges Would Lead To Overcrowded Superior Court Dockets :: Charlotte North Carolina DWI DUI Criminal Attorney Lawyer

Published on: February 12, 2013 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “I was found not guilty of a charge, but my record still shows the charge.”

A recently proposed bill working its way through the North Carolina General Assembly would cut appointed superior court judges across the state, including one here in Mecklenburg County. The piece of legislation, Senate Bill 10, proposes cutting 12 judges to help shave more than $2 million from the state’s budget.

These special judges work by traveling across the state and filling in where they are needed. They keep the already crowded dockets moving when regular superior court judges are out or busy with other, lengthy cases. The judges hear serious civil and felony criminal cases and can be a much needed release valve for the massively overscheduled judiciary. Budget Cut.jpg

Our very own Charlotte, NC criminal defense attorney, Brad Smith, was interviewed by reporters with WSOC TV about the proposed piece of legislation. Smith pointed out that rather than save the state money, the removal of the judges would actually end up costing everyone more in the long run as already crowded dockets would grind to a halt. By trimming these traveling superior court judges, existing clerks and judges will have to worker harder and longer hours, complicated trials will clog up dockets with no relief from extra hands and more money will be spent transporting and housing criminals while they await trial.

Driving Without A License In North Carolina :: Charlotte DWI DUI Criminal Lawyer

Published on: January 31, 2013 | On behalf of Arnold & Smith, PLLC

Attorney J. Bradley Smith answering the question: “What is the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony?”

According to a recent article with MyFox8, the issue of unlicensed drivers in North Carolina has become a serious problem, one that has prompted law enforcement agencies across the state to take notice. Recent statistics reveal that one in every seven drivers in North Carolina is behind the wheel without a valid license. Those numbers raise alarm in the law enforcement community and have prompted some departments to begin cracking down, actively searching for those behind the wheel when they should not be.

According to data from AAA, a whopping 21 percent of deadly accidents in the state involve an unlicensed driver. Another report says that nationwide, 18.2 percent of such fatal crashes involve unlicensed drivers. Between 2007 and 2009, AAA estimates that such unlicensed drivers were involved in crashes where 21,000 people died.

Another issue for those driving without proper permission is that unlicensed driving often leads to other criminal acts. For instance, AAA says that the majority of fatal hit-and-run accidents involve an unlicensed driver. That means that when the driver is ultimately located an additional criminal charge will be piled on top of driving without a license.

Those in the state pushing for a crackdown on unlicensed drivers also point to the financial cost of such accidents. Unlicensed drivers are by their very nature uninsured drivers, which means that when an accident occurs, the other party’s insurer will typically have to foot the bill. This added expense is passed along to everyone else by way of increased monthly premiums to account for the risk associated with unlicensed drivers.