The Voluntary Intoxication defense in North Carolina criminal law is not an excuse for unlawful conduct but an evidentiary doctrine that can negate the specific intent 
required for certain crimes. It is one of the most demanding defenses to raise, requiring a high threshold of proof.
The defense operates as a rule of mental incapacity tied to the proof of mens rea (guilty mind), specifically in relation to specific intent crimes.
Auto-Brewery Syndrome (ABS) remains a bit of a theoretical curiosity. It represents a measurable biochemical anomaly during which yeast or bacteria residing in the gastrointestinal tract convert carbohydrates into ethanol within the human body. 
Though somewhat rare, it is medically documented, scientifically verifiable in some instances, and possibly legally consequential, at least relative to DUI charges in North Carolina.
Voluntary intoxication occupies one of the narrowest spaces in North Carolina criminal law. It is not a general justification for unlawful conduct, nor is it a plea for 
sympathy.
Instead, voluntary intoxication functions as a limited doctrine that may, under rare circumstances, negate the specific intent required for particular crimes.
The defense reflects a long-standing tension between moral accountability and the requirement that the State prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
TL;DR Quick Take: The legacy of North Carolina v. Rogers reaches beyond suppression hearings. It redefines how courts balance 
government trust against the structural necessity of constitutional discipline. Whether this evolution strengthens justice or weakens liberty depends on how future courts interpret the limits of “reasonableness” in applying the Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule.
Constitutional rights mean little without remedies that make them enforceable. The framers of the US Constitution understood this when they created mechanisms to restrain power through process.
If a “knock and talk” crosses the constitutional line, can what officers saw or learned still justify 
a search warrant?
TL;DR Quick Take: North Carolina v. Norman tests the limits of North Carolina’s knock and talk doctrine and asks whether a search warrant can survive when officers use observations gathered during a questionable encounter on private property.
The decision turns on three interrelated questions:
This post continues the Breath, Blood, and Bull series, which explores how science, technology, and human judgment shape DWI 
enforcement in North Carolina.
The first article examined the limits of field sobriety testing. This installment turns to the machines that translate breath into evidence, using “breathalyzers.”
By unpacking how they measure alcohol, where they can fail, and how lawyers challenge their results, you’ll see why science is not necessarily as simple as a number on a printout.
Judicial activism is one of the most debated concepts in American constitutional law. It describes a form of judicial behavior in which 
courts are perceived to go beyond interpreting the law and instead make policy choices that belong to the political branches.
To its critics, judicial activism threatens the separation of powers and undermines democratic accountability.
To its defenders, it represents a necessary means of protecting rights when elected officials fail to do so.
TL;DR Quick Take: North Carolina v. Rogers could prove to be one of the most consequential constitutional rulings in North Carolina criminal 
law in decades. The opinion not only interprets N.C.G.S. § 15A-974 but also redefines how North Carolina courts understand the relationship between the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 20 of the North Carolina State Constitution.
As applied, the Good Faith Exception articulated in State v. Rogers reverses longstanding precedent set forth in North Carolina v. Carter.
The burden quietly shifts to the accused to demonstrate unreasonableness, reversing long-standing Due Process protections and draining both the fruit and the fiber from the “poisonous tree.”
The Supreme Court of North Carolina’s opinion in North Carolina v. Rogers (Oct. 17, 2025) deserves careful study by 
criminal defense and DUI defense lawyers.
TL;DR Quick Take North Carolina v. Rogers reshapes how certain suppression motions may be litigated in North Carolina. The Supreme Court interpreted the 2011 “good faith” amendment to N.C.G.S. §15A-974 as significantly limiting the scope of the exclusionary rule, allowing evidence obtained through unlawful searches to be admitted if officers relied on objectively reasonable belief in the legality of their conduct. The decision narrows the path for defendants seeking suppression and marks a turning point in how trial courts evaluate Fourth Amendment violations.
Editor’s Note: The Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Rogers addressed good-faith reliance on a judicial order, not warrantless arrests or searches. The opinion leaves open whether the same reasoning will apply to warrantless seizures or probable-cause challenges. For now, Rogers appears to narrow the exclusionary rule only in the context of judicially authorized warrants and orders.
Accessing video evidence, body-cam, and dash-cam video in North Carolina potentially just became a lot harder to obtain. 
TL;DR Quick Take: North Carolina v. Chemuti limits how defendants can access police body-worn and dash-camera recordings. The Supreme Court held that Rule 45 subpoenas cannot compel production of law-enforcement video. Instead, defendants must file a petition under N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4A in superior court, which is the exclusive procedure for release.
The Chemuti ruling is significant because, unlike many states, North Carolina provides no traditional right to discovery in cases originating in district court.
Carolina Criminal Defense & DUI Lawyer Updates
