Charlotte Criminal Lawyer Blog

North Carolina Legislators Consider Granting Prosecutors Power To Try Children As Adults :: Charlotte North Carolina DWI DUI Criminal Attorney Lawyer

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

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

A battle in the state legislature is brewing over a bill that would grant prosecutors dramatically more power in determining which juveniles are tried as adults. The legislation, House Bill 217, would allow prosecutors to decide whether to try children as adults so long as they are 13 or older and have been charged with certain serious felonies.

Watch Children Sign Charlotte NC DUI DWI Criminal Lawyer Attorney.jpg North Carolina law currently leaves the decision of whether to try a child in adult court up to juvenile court judges. The measure has sparked a huge outcry from judges and defense attorneys who say giving prosecutors so much power is a bad move. Many believe that judges are in the best position to weigh not only the best interest of the child, but also the best interest of the community before making such an important decision.

Some defense attorneys have worried that prosecutors, who are often required to appear tough on crime, will have very little incentive to keep children in the juvenile justice system. The problem is that the community is seldom made safer by trying kids as adults. Additionally, the children are almost never helped by being moved into an adult prison system that is not equipped to care for them or offer much in the way of rehabilitation.

Serious Questions Raised About North Carolina’s Lack Of Protections For Criminal Biological Evidence :: Charlotte North Carolina DWI DUI Criminal Attorney Lawyer

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

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

It is tragic to think that there are people in prison in North Carolina today all because courts or police lost or discarded important evidence that could have been used to secure their freedom.

Rape kits, dirty sheets and blood samples are just some of things that have been tossed aside because courts and police officers simply did not know how valuable they would become in the future. As scientific understanding grew by leaps and bounds over the last several decades, evidence that could be used to free innocent suspects has increasingly been discovered to be lost forever.

One especially terrible tale of North Carolina’s criminal evidence storage system is found in the case of Dwayne Dali. Dali was released from prison in 2007 after a nightgown that was part of the rape he had been convicted of was found and DNA tested after years of having been misplaced. While this is great news for Dali, there are potentially dozens or hundreds more who insist they are innocent yet will never be able to prove this because evidence surrounding their crime was either lost or destroyed. Police DNA Charlotte NC DUI DWI Criminal Attorney Lawyer.jpg

The North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence has said it has run across 45 separate instances where DNA testing could definitively settle the issue of a defendant’s guilt or innocence, but the evidence was either lost or destroyed. In 2001, legislators in the state passed a law that laid out which items should be kept in a case and for how long. It also created strict rules for how the destruction should proceed, with all destructions requiring approval by a judge only after defense attorneys and public defenders had been notified.

NC Supreme Court Says “Life Sentence” Means Prisoners Must Remain In Jail For Life :: Charlotte North Carolina DWI DUI Criminal Attorney Lawyer

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

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

The North Carolina Supreme Court issued an important ruling just last week making clear that those criminals sentenced to life in prison for murder, rape and other serious crimes during a period of the 1970s would truly be kept in prison for life.

The ruling comes about a month after the North Carolina Supreme Court heard arguments from attorneys for two inmates who said they should be released from prison according to the language of the laws then in place.
Prison wall markings Charlotte DUI DWI Criminal Lawyer Attorney.jpg
Curiously, North Carolina statutes between 1974 and 1978 stated that a life sentence was defined as a period of 80 years behind bars. While this seems like quite a lot of time, given the life expectancy of most people, good behavior and other time credits given for work in prison can cut this almost in half. This meant that some people sentenced to life during that time from could be nearing release if the prior statutory language prevailed.

Clyde Vernon Lovette and Charles Lynch, the two inmates seeking release, agued that they had earned enough credits for good behavior that their sentences should have been reduced allowing them to be released from prison. Lovette was in jail for a 1978 second-degree murder conviction while Lynch was convicted of two counts of second-degree burglary. Each man received a life sentence for his crime.

North Carolina Woman Takes Plea Deal Over Stealing From Neighbor’s Dead Son :: Charlotte North Carolina DWI DUI Criminal Attorney Lawyer

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

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

A North Carolina woman pled guilty to stealing from her neighbor’s dead child. The horrible incident took place in September of 2012 after a one-year-old boy drowned in a neighbor’s pond after wandering away from his Rowan County, NC house.
Gravestone Charlotte NC DUI DWI Criminal Lawyer Attorney.jpg
The day of the young boy’s funeral, two neighbors, Jessica Williams and Bobby Milam, broke into the family’s home. While inside they stole some expensive items including jewelry and electronics which were found at a pawn shop and inside the mobile home shared by Williams and Milam. Several personal items were also stolen including a wall ornament, a picture frame and a book that contained the boy’s birth certificate. Bizarrely, those same items were later found partially burnt in a fire pit behind their house.

A few days later police had zeroed in on the two and arrested and charged both with burglary. Just last week Jessica Williams pleaded guilty to her charges. Williams made what is known as an Alford Plea, meaning that she did not admit to the crime but did acknowledge that there was enough evidence to convict her. Under an Alford plea, the defendant must admit that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

ACLU Investigates Military Technologies Purchased By Civilian Police Departments in North Carolina :: Charlotte North Carolina DWI DUI Criminal Attorney Lawyer

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

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

The North Carolina Chapter of the ACLU has announced that it is investigating actions by police departments across the state to purchase sophisticated military technology that it says may be used to spy on citizens. The action was prompted by the Monroe, NC police department’s decision to reveal it would be spending $44,000 to purchase a drone of its own.

The Monroe City Council voted last week to authorize the purchase of a battery-powered mini-drone that contains a rotating infrared camera. The Monroe Police Department insists it will not use the drone to spy on innocent citizens and that it will put detailed procedures in place before the drone is ever used. They say they expect it to be used at crime scenes, in searches or in the case of natural disasters.

Despite these assurances, the ACLU has filed several public records requests with Monroe and other police organization across the state to obtain more information about exactly how such devices will be used. The ACLU has also filed such requests with Mecklenburg County along with 61 other police agencies in the state.

Police Drone Charlotte NC DUI DWI Criminal Lawyer Attorney.jpg The state ACLU chapter has released a statement expressing its concern over the increasing use of military equipment and technologies by traditional law enforcement agencies. The group says its goal in filing these public records requests is to make sure that these frightening technologies and tactics are not being deployed without considerable oversight and that citizens’ legal rights are still being upheld.

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.