Carolina Criminal Defense & DUI Lawyer UpdatesAccessing 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.
Few areas highlight that collision more than impaired driving prosecutions involving fatalities and serious injuries.
second-degree murder charges.
health to religious observance and athletic discipline. While it may offer certain physiological benefits, fasting also triggers changes in the body’s metabolic pathways that may complicate the interpretation of forensic alcohol testing in DWI cases.
a range of charges depending on the circumstances. Two of the most serious offenses are Felony Death by Vehicle and Second-Degree Murder.
preliminary roadside screening with a handheld device, the real focal point often comes from the Intoximeter EC/IR II machine. This desktop breath-testing device measures deep-lung air and generates an official reading that prosecutors regularly use as evidence at trial.
(SFSTs) to gauge whether enough evidence exists for an arrest or further chemical testing. Roadside dexterity tests—commonly the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, the Walk-and-Turn test, and the One-Leg Stand test—remain a subject of debate. Questions arise about whether these tests are truly “standardized,” whether they reliably they measure impairment or are overly subjective, and how courts treat SFSTs as evidence.
screening at the roadside and an evidentiary test under the state’s implied consent laws. These procedures are guided by statutes like G.S. 20-16.2, which defines the expectations placed on a driver once probable cause is established. Although both tests relate to detecting alcohol, they serve different functions and carry different legal consequences.
license violations and to enforce the “drunk driving” (impaired driving) laws. The process must follow certain constitutional and statutory guidelines to avoid arbitrary or discriminatory stops.
circumstances, raise doubt about whether a reported BAC reflects the true breath alcohol content.