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.
Defense lawyers have long relied on Rule 45 subpoenas to access video that might contradict an officer’s testimony or expose inconsistencies in a stop or arrest.
Chemuti closes that path, making access to potentially exculpatory footage far more difficult, especially in misdemeanor and impaired driving prosecutions that may never reach superior court.
Below is a detailed look at the facts, procedural history, and reasoning in North Carolina v. Chemuti, how the opinion reshapes pretrial “discovery,” and what it means for lawyers seeking video evidence in North Carolina criminal cases.
If you have questions about video evidence, search warrants, or discovery issues in your North Carolina criminal case, contact the Powers Law Firm in Charlotte to discuss your options and next steps. Text or call Bill Powers at 704-342-4357 or email Bill@CarolinaAttorneys.com.
Bill Powers is a Board Certified Criminal Defense Lawyer through the National Board of Trial Advocacy and is also a recipient of the Distinguished Service Award given by the North Carolina State Bar, recognizing his commitment to legal education and professionalism in the practice of law. Bill Powers is a former president of NCAJ – the North Carolina Advocates for Justice and has representing clients across North Carolina for more than 30 years (since 1992).
Key Questions Raised About Video Evidence in North Carolina
The opinion in Chemuti addresses several interrelated questions that reach beyond the facts of a single case:
-
Can defense counsel use a Rule 45 subpoena to obtain police body-cam or dash-cam video?
-
Is § 132-1.4A the sole path to access such recordings?
-
How does this procedural shift affect preparation, discovery, and fairness in criminal cases?
The Court’s answers are unambiguous. Rule 45 does not apply. The statute governs every law-enforcement recording, and no other process may override it.
FREE DOWNLOAD: Petition for Release of Law Enforcement Recordings
The Growing Importance of Video Evidence in North Carolina
For years, video evidence has reshaped criminal trials in North Carolina.
Body-worn cameras, dash-cams, and surveillance footage now record the moments that once depended on police testimony alone.
In district and superior courts across the state, criminal defense lawyers routinely subpoena video directly from law-enforcement agencies, often under Rule 45, to ensure timely preservation and disclosure.
That familiar process changed with North Carolina v. Chemuti.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion closes a procedural door that many lawyers argued was open.
The decision redefines how defendants must seek access to law-enforcement recordings and shifts the process from discovery to petition.
Systemic Consequences of Chemuti to North Carolina Superior Court
The immediate practical, if not devastating, effect of North Carolina v. Chemuti will most certainly be felt in superior court.
For decades, district court practitioners have used subpoenas under Rule 45 to obtain police body-camera and dash-camera footage for routine misdemeanor and DWI cases. After Chemuti, those same requests must now be made through petitions filed in superior court under N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4A.
Superior Court dockets will be slammed with video requests. I don’t know if anyone on Jones Street really understands the full impact of what’s about to happen to our Superior Court dockets – Bill Powers, Criminal Defense Lawyer
Nothing has changed about the duty of defense counsel to prepare for trial, confront witnesses, and cross-examine effectively.
Lawyers will still seek video evidence, because it remains essential to truth-finding and fairness. The only difference is that the procedural route has become exponentially more burdensome.
This opinion might hit hard, without some level of cooperation between the State (District Attorneys’ Offices), local rules, procedures and protocols of the Court, and defense counsel.
Consent, Cooperation, and the Voluntary Release of Police Recordings
The Supreme Court in North Carolina v. Chemuti did not forbid law enforcement or prosecutors from voluntarily providing video.
It only held that a subpoena cannot compel release because §132-1.4A establishes the exclusive mandatory process when someone seeks to compel disclosure.
Section 132-1.4A(f)–(g) itself contemplates voluntary action.
Judicial Independence in North Carolina
Recordings “may be disclosed or released” by the custodial agency with the written consent of the appropriate authority. That consent can come from the agency head, the district attorney, or through a consent order approved by the court.
Of course, that level of cooperation does not always occur.
Chemuti itself reached the Supreme Court of North Carolina precisely because the State refused to consent. Rather than allow access, prosecutors opposed release and argued that Rule 45 subpoenas could not compel production of the recordings.
The Court’s opinion noted that agencies and prosecutors routinely enter consent agreements which include a protective order and a consent release of these body-cam recordings after receipt of a petition under §132-1.4A(f).
Nothing in either the statute or the opinion prevents voluntary cooperation before or without a formal petition.
Although defendants can no longer compel disclosure through a subpoena, a district attorney or law-enforcement agency may still elect to release recordings voluntarily, particularly under a protective or consent order consistent with §132-1.4A(f).
Judicial Restraint and Legislative Responsibility
To be clear, the Supreme Court did not create the problem.
One would have to assume it’s keenly aware of what could happen to Superior Court dockets (if prosecutors persist, refusing to turn over video evidence without a formal filing in Superior Court, Hearing, and Court Order) and the already unbearable delays in our system of justice in North Carolina.
The justices applied the law as written.
Their decision reflects judicial restraint, not policymaking.
Responsibility belongs to the General Assembly, which enacted a statute that conceivable places an extraordinary administrative burden on North Carolina’s trial courts.
The law was adopted, at least in part, to limit the public release of recordings that might embarrass law enforcement.
That rationale has little to do with fairness, due process, or the pursuit of truth.
Transparency is not the enemy of justice. It strengthens it.
The vast majority officers take pride in their work and understand that accurate video evidence can confirm proper conduct and protect credibility.
In terms of efficiency and truth-finding, video evidence has done more to facilitate fair resolutions, limit unnecessary litigation, and strengthen the administration of justice than any other evidentiary development in North Carolina’s legal history – Bill Powers, Criminal Defense Attorney
Trust but Verify: Is Video Evidence the Best Disinfectant or Most Efficient Policeman?
As President Reagan once said, “Doverjáj, no proverjáj.” Trust but verify.
Trust works best when paired with the ability to verify.
Justice Brandeis once commented, “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.”
Sunlight, in this context, means openness, accountability, and the confidence that justice is being carried out in full public view.
Shielding recordings from disclosure does not protect justice.
Except when necessary to protect victims or privacy interests, there is very little reason to conceal evidence that records the exercise of government authority.
Video evidence is not a threat to justice. It is one of its strongest safeguards.
If the statute remains unchanged or prosecutors refuse to consent to the voluntary release of video evidence, the courts will face growing strain on both fairness and efficiency.
By requiring every request for police video to proceed through the petition process in Superior Court under §132-1.4A, Chemuti removes a practical tool that defense lawyers have relied on for decades.
Every misdemeanor, DWI, and traffic case that involves body-camera footage will trigger a separate filing in Superior Court.
That procedural change will overwhelm already crowded calendars with motions unrelated to the merits of the cases themselves.
Unless the General Assembly acts to create a workable and unified procedure for video access, Superior Court judges will face an administrative problem that the current system cannot absorb.
Legislative reform is not just advisable. It is necessary to preserve both efficiency and fairness in North Carolina’s criminal courts – Bill Powers, North Carolina DWI Defense Lawyer
Video Evidence and the Supreme Court’s Decision in Chemuti
The case began after the district court issued a subpoena directing the police department to produce body-cam video related to a pending prosecution.
When the agency refused, the defense sought judicial enforcement. The district court granted the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Supreme Court, however, reversed. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Dietz held that Rule 45 subpoenas cannot compel production of law-enforcement recordings because those materials are governed exclusively by N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4A, the Public Records Law section that classifies body-cam and dash-cam footage as “law enforcement agency recordings.”
FREE DOWNLOAD: Order Releasing Law Enforcement Recordings
That statute requires a petition in superior court, with notice to the custodial agency and any person depicted in the video, before any release or disclosure may occur.
The Court emphasized that the General Assembly intentionally created a distinct procedure, separate from criminal discovery or Rule 45 subpoenas, to protect privacy, security, and ongoing investigations.
The Court’s Holding and Reasoning
Justice Dietz’s opinion grounds its reasoning in statutory interpretation.
The language of § 132-1.4A defines law enforcement recordings as confidential and not public records.
It also outlines who may petition for release, defendants, media organizations, and others, with the superior court serving as the exclusive forum for deciding access.
Because the legislature created a detailed petition process with notice, hearing requirements, and judicial findings, the Court concluded that this structure displaces the general subpoena rules that otherwise allow production of ordinary evidence.
When is Video Evidence Admissible in NC?
The Court rejected arguments that Rule 45’s broad language could coexist with § 132-1.4A, explaining that the statute’s specificity controls.
In effect, the Court reinforced that law-enforcement video is not ordinary evidence.
It exists within a closed statutory system, and the judiciary must respect the limits the legislature has imposed.
Contrast With Prior Practice in North Carolina Courts
Before Chemuti, DUI defense lawyers and criminal defense practitioners across North Carolina routinely used Rule 45 to subpoena law-enforcement recordings.
District court judges frequently ordered compliance, recognizing that defense counsel had no other practical way to secure timely access.
Those subpoenas served as both preservation tools and discovery mechanisms.
In the past, courts permitted defendants to seek recordings under general discovery principles, sometimes relying on Brady and due-process arguments to ensure fairness.
North Carolina v. Chemuti, by contrast, directly establishes that body-worn and dash-camera footage must be obtained through a petition under N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4A rather than a Rule 45 subpoena.
It marks the first time the North Carolina Supreme Court has formally confined video access to that statutory mechanism.
Now, even when a recording plainly exists, the defense cannot compel its production through ordinary process.
Every request must follow the statutory petition route, complete with superior-court filing, service on the custodial agency, and notice to anyone depicted in the footage.
“Discovery” of video evidence in NC District Court
There is no reciprocal discovery under N.C.G.S. § 15A-903 for cases initiated and tried in district court in North Carolina.
-
Article 48 discovery, including § 15A-903, applies only to cases within the original jurisdiction of Superior Court. See G.S. 15A-901 (“This Article applies to cases within the original jurisdiction of the superior court.”).
-
There is no statutory discovery right in District Court, and no statutory discovery for misdemeanors appealed to Superior Court for trial de novo because those cases did not originate in Superior Court.
The UNC School of Government Prosecutor’s Manual sets forth there are no statutory rights to discovery in district court, or for misdemeanors on appeal to superior court for trial de novo, citing G.S. 15A-901 and case law.
In district court, discovery is therefore largely discretionary and governed by local custom, professional courtesy, and Brady and Giglio obligations.
The prosecution may voluntarily provide reports, video, or other evidence, but there is no statutory right to compel production or reciprocal access before the case is appealed or bound over to superior court.
Do Brady and Giglio Obligations Require the State to Review and Voluntarily Disclose Video Evidence?
The constitutional duties established in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), exist independent of any statutory discovery right or procedural mechanism.
They apply in every criminal prosecution, regardless of whether the case originates in District or Superior Court, and regardless of Chemuti or N.C.G.S. §132-1.4A.
Those cases require the State to disclose evidence that is favorable to the accused, material to guilt or punishment, or that may affect the credibility of a State’s witness.
The obligation extends beyond what the prosecutor personally knows.
The State must learn of and disclose favorable evidence known to police and investigative agents working on the case.
That duty necessarily includes video evidence.
If a body-worn or dash-camera recording contains information that could assist the defense, whether by contradiction, impeachment, or context, the prosecutor must obtain and review it.
Failure to do so risks violating due process, regardless of statutory limits on compelled disclosure.
Neither Brady nor Giglio requires universal disclosure of all recordings, but both require good-faith diligence.
A prosecutor cannot avoid responsibility by declining to look.
The constitutional obligation is to know what the State possesses and to share anything that may bear on the defendant’s guilt, punishment, or the credibility of witnesses.
In practice, this means that even if §132-1.4A restricts compelled access, the State’s constitutional duties of fairness still require proactive review and voluntary disclosure of exculpatory or impeachment material found on video.
That obligation stands apart from procedural rules and cannot be avoided by statutory omission.
Practical Impact on Defense Counsel
The implications for defense lawyers are immediate and significant.
Under Chemuti, obtaining body-cam or dash-cam recordings will require additional time, resources, and procedural precision. A few key points emerge:
-
Ask nicely: If an agency refuses voluntary disclosure, make a written request and attach it to your petition.
-
Coordinate with prosecutors: Some district attorneys routinely obtain copies of recordings under investigative authority. Request reciprocal access through discovery under N.C.G.S. § 15A-903 (if applicable).
- File when required: Because § 132-1.4A petitions must be heard in superior court, timing can matter. File before key pretrial dates to avoid trial-stage delays, if possible.
The Court’s opinion also reaffirms a broader principle: the legislature controls access to evidence when it creates a specialized statutory scheme.
DUI defense lawyers should adapt strategy accordingly.
Constitutional and Policy Concerns in North Carolina
Chemuti narrows access without resolving every constitutional question.
The Court’s opinion focused on statutory interpretation, not on whether restricting defendants to a petition procedure in Superior Court might, in practice, erode fundamental fairness.
That issue appears to remainsopen.
North Carolina’s commitment to the Rule of Law presupposes equal footing between prosecution and defense in obtaining and evaluating evidence.
If one side controls access to recordings that may determine credibility, the balance of fairness that underlies due process begins to tilt.
The decision’s silence on constitutional safeguards invites further litigation.
Future cases may test whether confining defendants to the §132-1.4A petition procedure, especially in District Court cases where no discovery rights exist, conflicts with the State’s continuing duties under Brady v. Maryland and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process.
If those challenges reach appellate review, the courts will likely be asked to reconcile the statutory limits of Chemuti with the enduring constitutional principle that fairness cannot depend on prosecutorial discretion or administrative convenience.
Where This Leaves Video Evidence in North Carolina
North Carolina v. Chemuti redefines how lawyers, judges, and law-enforcement agencies handle video evidence. It eliminates informal subpoena access, elevates the procedural threshold, and places control firmly within superior court jurisdiction.
For defense counsel, the lesson is clear, video evidence may still determine guilt or innocence, but the path to obtain it now likely runs through statutory gates if the State refuses to release information either through voluntary process or other Giglio / Brady pathways.
If you have questions about video evidence, search warrants, or discovery issues in your North Carolina criminal case, contact the defense lawyers at Powers Law Firm to discuss your options and next steps. You may call or TEXT Bill Powers at 704-342-4357 or email him Bill@CarolinaAttorneys.com.
Bill Powers is a NBTA – National Board of Trial Advocacy Board Certified Criminal Defense Lawyer. Bill Powers is also a recipient of the North Carolina State Bar’s Distinguished Service Award and a former president of NCAJ – the North Carolina Advocates for Justice. He’s practiced law since 1992 and has more than 30 years of courtroom experience representing clients in North Carolina.