Carolina Criminal Defense & DUI Lawyer UpdatesTL;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.”
criminal defense and DUI defense lawyers.
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.