Carolina Criminal Defense & DUI Lawyer UpdatesDUI 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.
That evaluation depends on where an encounter occurs, how it begins, and the legal consequences that flow from those facts.
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.
N.C.G.S. § 14-51.2 and the no-duty-to-retreat provisions in N.C.G.S. § 14-51.3.
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.
enforcement transitions from general investigation to custodial interrogation, limiting what officers may ask before warnings (the advisement of legal rights) are given and what statements prosecutors may later use at trial.
This is most commonly seen in serious vehicular prosecutions where impaired driving serves as a predicate offense, including collision investigations involving injury or death, where scene management, medical transport, search warrant procedures, and hospital blood draws may delay specimen collection for three or more hours.
a crime. If you or a loved one face charges related to Criminal Attempt in NC, understanding this distinction can be fundamental to formulating an effective defense strategy. The difference is not merely academic. It is the line that separates a “thought crime” from a felony conviction. This distinction rests primarily on two fundamental concepts. those being the required intent and the overt act.
table. As a Charlotte criminal defense attorney who has practiced in Mecklenburg County for more than 30 years, I can tell you this without hesitation the Wednesday before Thanksgiving through the Sunday after is one of the busiest stretches of the year for assault arrests. Add alcohol, old grievances, political arguments, and the pressure of hosting (or being hosted by) people you strategically avoid the other 51 weeks of the year, and you have a recipe for criminal charges.