Article I Section 20

June 9, 2026

Bad Search Warrant Affidavit | North Carolina

When Police Change Facts in a North Carolina Search Warrant Affidavit

In a North Carolina criminal case, a police report is generally an investigative record. It can be updated and supplemented as the investigation moves. A search warrant affidavit is a sworn factual statement submitted to a neutral judicial official to justify a search before it occurs. When an officer changes wording, drops an inconvenient detail, adds a salient fact, or reshapes the narrative on the way to a warrant, the legal question is not whether a report was “corrected.” Instead, defense counsel might reasonably ask whether the sworn affidavit truthfully reports what the officer knew, or whether the warrant became a formality used to ratify a search the officer had already decided to make.

North Carolina law does not demand a perfect affidavit. Courts do not strike warrants over every typo, clumsy phrase, or mistaken background fact. But there is a line past which forgiving de minimis errors starts to look like adoption or ratification of sloppy processes. If courts routinely excuse factual strengthening, after-the-fact wording, and selective omissions, that habit can begin to function as permission, if not authorization. It signals that an affidavit based on factually slight evidence might be rescued by sharper language and that an oath, affirmation, and signature will paper over the gap. That is not the order set out by the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 20 of the North Carolina Constitution.

May 20, 2026

Traffic Ticket Infractions in North Carolina | Superior Court Jurisdiction

by Carolina Attorneys

On May 20, 2026, the North Carolina Court of Appeals decided State v. Myers, a case that may quietly create one of the stranger jurisdictional and constitutional problems in modern North Carolina traffic-stop litigation. The opinion itself appears relatively narrow at first glance. Superior Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate contested standalone traffic ticket infractions unless N.C.G.S. § 7A-271(d) applies, even if those infractions are indicted alongside related felony and misdemeanor charges. Digging a bit deeper, the opinion more subtly raises a harder question for defense lawyers going forward. What happens when the alleged traffic infraction is not properly triable in Superior Court, yet that same alleged violation is the entire constitutional basis for the felony stop, detention, seizure, or arrest?

TL;DR: A New Hanover County jury convicted defendant of felony fleeing to elude arrest by motor vehicle and misdemeanor resisting a public officer. The jury also found them responsible for two traffic infractions, those being failure to signal a lane change and failure to carry a valid driver’s license. The Superior Court consolidated the misdemeanor conviction with the infractions and entered judgment. The Court of Appeals vacated the consolidated judgment, holding that Superior Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the contested standalone infractions because they were not lesser-included violations and the defendant did not admit responsibility. The fact that the infractions were included in an indictment returned by a grand jury did not cure the jurisdictional defect.

N.C.G.S. § 7A-253 sets forth that original and exclusive jurisdiction for the adjudication and disposition of infractions lies in District Court, except as provided in N.C.G.S. § 7A-271(d). Superior Court must submit an infraction to the jury when it is a lesser-included violation of a criminal action properly before the court. Superior Court may also accept an admission of responsibility to an infraction when it is either lesser-included or a related charge. Myers did not fit either category. The defendant did not admit responsibility, and the alleged infractions were not lesser-included violations of the felony or misdemeanor charges.

November 12, 2025

Civil Warrants, Criminal Searches: Fourth Amendment in North Carolina

by Carolina Attorneys

The North Carolina Court of Appeals’ decision in State v. Hickman (COA24-893, filed November 5, 2025) revisits a foundational 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.

October 29, 2025

The Future of the Exclusionary Rule in North Carolina

by Carolina Attorneys

TL;DR Quick Take: The legacy of North Carolina v. Rogers reaches beyond suppression hearings. It redefines how courts balance 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.

October 19, 2025

State v. Rogers: Slow Death of the Exclusionary Rule in NC?

by Carolina Attorneys

TL;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.”