Justia Lawyer Rating
best Lawyer
Super Lawyer - Top 100
best Lawyers
Avvo Rating 10.0
AV Preeminent
The National Trial Lawyers
The best Lawyers in America
CLEA
Advocates for Justice
Business North Carolina Legal Elite - 2023
DUI Defense
NBTA
DUI Defense Lawyers Association
*For additional information regarding the criterion for inclusion or membership for lawyer associations, awards, & certifications click image for link.

by

The North Carolina Court of Appeals’ decision in State v. Hickman (COA24-893, filed November 5, 2025) revisits a foundational Civil warrants and criminal searches in North Carolina courtroom scene symbolizing Fourth Amendment protections and limits question in constitutional law. When government agents enter private property without a warrant, what happens to the evidence they obtain?

While the case involves a Department of Revenue tax warrant rather than a traditional criminal investigation, its implications extend beyond tax collection. It clarifies the continuing role of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 20 of the North Carolina Constitution in protecting private dwellings from unauthorized searches and seizures.

The opinion also reaffirms an older, quieter truth that sometimes gets lost in modern exclusionary-rule debate.

Continue reading

by

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 North Carolina judge in courtroom illustrating the legal role of trial judges in voluntary intoxication defense cases involving specific intent crimes required for certain crimes. It is one of the most demanding defenses to raise, requiring a high threshold of proof.

Key Principles of the Voluntary Intoxication Defense

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.

Continue reading

by

The Limits of Chemical Certainty: The Auto-Brewery Syndrome & DWI Charges 

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. North Carolina judge in a courtroom setting representing judicial evaluation of scientific evidence and credibility in DWI cases involving Auto-Brewery Syndrome

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. 

Continue reading

by

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 North Carolina judge in courtroom reflecting on voluntary intoxication defense and the legal standard for criminal charges involving specific intent crimes 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.

Continue reading

by

TL;DR Quick Take: The legacy of North Carolina v. Rogers reaches beyond suppression hearings. It redefines how courts balance Founding-era statesmen drafting a constitution in a historic law library with quill pens and parchment, symbolizing the creation of the North Carolina State Constitution and early American constitutional law 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.

I. Constitutional Remedies and the Philosophy of Enforcement

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.

Continue reading

by

If a “knock and talk” crosses the constitutional line, can what officers saw or learned still justify Two uniformed police officers standing at a doorway during a knock and talk investigation in North Carolina, illustrating Fourth Amendment search and seizure and probable cause issues in criminal defense cases 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:

Continue reading

by

This post continues the Breath, Blood, and Bull series, which explores how science, technology, and human judgment shape DWI Police officer speaking with a driver during a traffic stop, illustrating field sobriety and breath testing procedures in North Carolina DWI investigations 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.

Continue reading

by

Judicial activism is one of the most debated concepts in American constitutional law. It describes a form of judicial behavior in which Judge seated in a courtroom, wearing a black robe with sunlight filtering through a window, symbolizing judicial authority, reflection, and the debate over judicial activism in American constitutional law 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.

Continue reading

by

TL;DR Quick Take: North Carolina v. Rogers could prove to be one of the most consequential constitutional rulings in North Carolina criminal A senior North Carolina judge sits in a historic courtroom, wearing a black judicial robe and gazing forward with a thoughtful, serious expression. Sunlight filters through tall arched windows, reflecting the dignity and gravity of constitutional decision-making in North Carolina’s courts 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.”

Continue reading

by

The Supreme Court of North Carolina’s opinion in North Carolina v. Rogers (Oct. 17, 2025) deserves careful study by Police officer standing beside a stopped car in North Carolina at dusk, representing the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule and Fourth Amendment search and seizure law. 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.

Continue reading