Carolina Criminal Defense & DUI Lawyer Updates

January 29, 2026

Mecklenburg County Bond Hearings After Iryna’s Law

Mecklenburg County bond hearings follow the North Carolina pretrial release law, yet the way those bond hearings are scheduled, reviewed, and decided in Charlotte reflects the size of the 26th Judicial District, the structure of its felony dockets, and recent statutory changes (Iryna’s Law) that raised the bar for release in certain categories of cases. The result is a process that is more structured and, to some extent, substantively different from those in many other counties.

The statutory framework governing bond hearings changed materially with the enactment of House Bill 307, commonly known as Iryna’s Law, which took effect in North Carolina on December 1, 2025. That legislation revised the pretrial release statutes and expanded the set of cases in which judges begin from the position that release is not appropriate unless the defense provides credible information to the contrary. For defined violent offenses and certain repeat or high-risk charge patterns set out by statute, the law now directs the Court (the Judge) to apply a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure both court appearance and public safety. As a practical matter, that change did not eliminate bond hearings, yet it altered their starting point. Instead of asking what conditions are sufficient for release, the Court must first decide whether the presumption against release has been overcome.

That presumption is not rhetorical or merely symbolic. It functions as a rule of decision that shifts the practical burden at a Mecklenburg County bond hearing. Defense counsel no longer argues, in every instance, from a neutral baseline that favors the least-restrictive release. The hearing instead begins with the court directed to treat detention as the default posture, for certain defined offenses and offenders, unless the defense produces reliable facts showing that structured conditions of release can address appearance risk and community safety. A release order in that setting requires an affirmative judicial finding, supported by the record, not a routine adjustment of bond terms.

January 23, 2026

DUI Checkpoints in North Carolina | 2026 DWI Checkpoint Update

by Carolina Attorneys

DUI checkpoints in North Carolina remain constitutional under a January 2026 Court of Appeals decision that clarifies how police must conduct sobriety checkpoints and license checkpoints.

In North Carolina vs White (“State v. White”) the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed that a DWI checkpoint in Robeson County complied with both the Fourth Amendment and N.C.G.S. § 20-16.3A, the statute governing police checkpoints in North Carolina.

TL;DR State v. White affirms that an organized license, registration, and insurance checkpoint may pass both the primary-purpose inquiry and the Brown v. Texas reasonableness balancing when the trial court finds advance authorization, a neutral stop pattern stopping every vehicle, supervisor control limiting officer discretion, and visible law-enforcement presence. It also reaffirms that North Carolina appellate courts continue to treat marijuana odor as sufficient for probable cause to search a vehicle, notwithstanding the practical difficulty of distinguishing hemp from marijuana, and it treats the SBI hemp memorandum as nonbinding. The opinion is most vulnerable, analytically, in how it handles the written-policy requirement and how quickly it converts structural checkpoint questions into findings insulated by deference.

January 10, 2026

Pretrial Limited Driving Privileges for DWI in North Carolina

by Carolina Attorneys

North Carolina law permits courts, in defined circumstances, to authorize limited driving during certain pretrial license revocations arising from impaired driving charges. That authority exists within the civil revocation framework and is governed by statute, not by the outcome of the criminal case. Whether a pretrial limited privilege is available depends on specific findings, timing requirements, and statutory prerequisites that courts evaluate before exercising their discretion in issuing an Order. The sections that follow explain how courts analyze eligibility, scope, and limitations for pretrial limited driving privileges for impaired driving charges in North Carolina.

1. A pretrial limited driving privilege is a temporary court order, not a license restoration.
A pretrial limited driving privilege is a judicial order that authorizes restricted driving during a period when a driver’s license has been revoked in connection with an implied-consent impaired driving case. It does not restore a license, erase a revocation, or signal how the criminal charge will be handled. The underlying revocation remains in place, and the privilege operates as a narrow exception that permits specified driving activity under defined, limited conditions.

2. Pretrial privileges exist within the civil revocation framework, not the criminal case itself.
Courts evaluate pretrial limited driving privileges through the lens of civil license revocation law, not as part of sentencing or disposition of the underlying impaired driving charge. The statutory authority for limited privileges in North Carolina is tied to pretrial revocations arising from alleged implied-consent offenses, rather than to post-conviction consequences. This distinction matters because eligibility rules, waiting periods, and conditions differ from those that apply after a conviction.

January 7, 2026

How Stand Your Ground and the Castle Doctrine Work in North Carolina

by Carolina Attorneys

In North Carolina, questions about “stand your ground” turn on how the law evaluates whether the use of force was legally justified. That evaluation depends on where an encounter occurs, how it begins, and the legal consequences that flow from those facts.

1. Location affects the legal starting point

North Carolina does not treat all self-defense claims the same. Where an encounter occurs determines which legal framework applies. Inside a home, and in areas the law treats as part of the home, the analysis begins with statutory presumptions. Outside those protected locations, the law applies a different structure.

January 4, 2026

State v. Allison | NC Stand Your Ground Law | Dec. 12, 2025

by Carolina Attorneys

As of 2026, the phrase “stand your ground” is the gateway term that most non-lawyers use when they are trying to understand North Carolina self-defense law. N.C.G.S. § 14-51.3 addresses when defensive force, including deadly force, may be used in a place where you have the lawful right to be and describes the absence of a duty to retreat in defined circumstances. The “castle doctrine” is related, but it is not the same rule with a different label. It is a separate statutory framework, centered on N.C.G.S. § 14-51.2, that applies to defined protected locations. That changes the analysis by using legislative presumptions and immunity concepts rather than leaving everything to a free-form reasonableness debate.

The Supreme Court of North Carolina’s decision in State v. Allison, No. 103PA24, filed December 12, 2025, addresses how trial courts must instruct juries when the defense seeks a castle-doctrine instruction under N.C.G.S. § 14-51.2. The opinion reinforces that the statute must be given as written, including its definitions, presumptions, and rebuttal structure, and that reverting to pre-statute reasonableness instructions is legal error.

The Court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the jury instructions allowed jurors to decide reasonableness and necessity outside the statutory presumption framework and because the jury was not instructed that curtilage is part of the “home” under the statute.

January 1, 2026

Stand Your Ground in North Carolina (2026) | Castle Doctrine

by Carolina Attorneys

In North Carolina, “stand your ground” is governed by a statutory use-of-force framework, including the castle doctrine under N.C.G.S. § 14-51.2 and the no-duty-to-retreat provisions in N.C.G.S. § 14-51.3.

The castle doctrine law in NC operates through statutory definitions, mandatory presumptions, and burden shifting, not necessarily through the generalized reasonableness inquiry often associated with common law self-defense. Put simply, once the statutory requirements are established, North Carolina law limits what a jury considers and when proportionality or necessity is determined.

The Supreme Court of North Carolina has enforced that statutory structure. In North Carolina v Phillips (also referred to as State v. Phillips) and North Carolina v Allison (State v. Allison), the Court reversed convictions where trial courts instructed juries to decide reasonableness and necessity outside the statute’s presumption framework. Those decisions confirm that jury instructions must follow the statute’s sequencing and that departures from that structure may produce reversible error.

December 24, 2025

Standing to Challenge a Search | NC Search and Seizure Law

by Carolina Attorneys

In the recent appellate decision of North Carolina v. Escalante (also cited as State v. Escalante), No. COA25-64, filed December 17, 2025, the North Carolina Court of Appeals examined whether the defendant had the legal right, known as standing, to challenge the legality of electronic surveillance used in his arrest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the defendant lacked standing to seek suppression because he could not demonstrate a personal privacy interest in the phone that was tracked.

At the Powers Law Firm, we enjoy helping clients navigate complex legal issues. Bill Powers, a seasoned trial attorney with more than three decades of courtroom experience, is a former President of the North Carolina Advocates for Justice and a recipient of the North Carolina State Bar’s John B. McMillan Distinguished Service Award. He is a widely regarded criminal defense lawyer in North Carolina and a frequent speaker and seminar host in the legal community. If you have questions about your legal rights, we invite you to reach out to Bill Powers at Powers Law Firm for guidance.

TL;DR “Hot Take” in North Carolina vs. Escalante

December 20, 2025

Remembering Governor Jim Hunt and the Quiet Influence of Paying Attention

by Carolina Attorneys

I’ve been thinking about Governor Jim Hunt since learning of his passing, and it pulled me back to a time in my life I had not revisited in years.

It feels like a long time ago now. I was a student at NC State, somewhere around 1986 or 1987. I had recently changed majors, moving away from a science-heavy course load into something more liberal-arts centered.

As part of that shift, I was informed I needed an internship. The whole idea felt foreign to me. I was used to labs, lab reports, and exams that tested concrete knowledge. This was different, and at the time I remember thinking it was silly, maybe a bit touchy-feely. Squishy, if you will.

December 17, 2025

Ketogenic Diet | DUI Breath Testing in North Carolina

by Carolina Attorneys

Claims that ketogenic diets can routinely cause false DUI readings have become staples of internet legal forums, social media explainers, and unsupervised biohacking communities lacking peer review or clinical validation, despite the absence of supporting forensic or toxicology data. The narrative usually follows a predictable formula. Ketosis produces acetone. Breath and blood devices confuse acetone for alcohol. Innocent drivers are misidentified as impaired.

The science behind that story is far more limited and problematic than some proponents acknowledge.

Understanding where ketogenic metabolism matters, and where it does not, involves separating three subjects that are often blended into one. Those are:

December 14, 2025

The “Per Se” DWI Narrative in North Carolina | Impaired Driving Law

by Carolina Attorneys

Search the phrase “per se DWI North Carolina,” and the results look deceptively confident. AI summaries and legal directories will tell you that if your blood test hits a certain number, a conviction is inevitable.

It is not the language of the statute. It is not the language used to instruct juries. It is a mantra of sorts that has been repeated so often it now masquerades as doctrine.

North Carolina’s DWI statute does not use the phrase per se impairment for alcohol or marijuana, and North Carolina’s jury instructions do not tell juries that a specific number automatically requires a finding of guilt. That phrase does not appear anywhere in N.C.G.S. 20-138.1.