Articles Tagged with Exclusionary Rule

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.

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.”

Do you believe in the Rule of Law? Talking heads from various sources bandy about Due Process, Equal Protection, and the Rule of Map outline of North Carolina filled with red, white, and blue horizontal stripes inspired by the state flag, set against a plain gray background. Law. But what do those terms really mean and are they even relevant in today’s perpetual, and frankly exhausting, messaging infrastructure?

Stripped of partisan slogans, the concept of the Rule of Law is neither vague nor ornamental. It has a precise meaning rooted in centuries of legal thought and practice.

It is not about who shouts the loudest or which faction claims the phrase; it is about the structure that makes the government accountable to the governed and liberty possible.

The exclusionary rule is a foundational principle in American criminal law. While it traces its origins to federal constitutional doctrine, it now plays a central role in everyday trial practice, including in state courtrooms across North Carolina. The rule is most often encountered through motions to suppress evidence, but its reach extends further, sometimes forming the basis for a motion to dismiss when the taint of unlawful police conduct affects more than a single piece of evidence. To understand why the rule exists and how it functions, it helps to examine both its historical roots and its practical application today.

Though courts often describe the exclusionary rule as a remedy, its function is broader than that. It reflects an institutional decision to draw a line between the conduct of law enforcement and the integrity of the courts. It limits what the State may use to prosecute someone when a constitutional violation has occurred. And while it can lead to the suppression of important or even decisive evidence, the logic behind the rule rests on the idea that constitutional limits on police conduct are only meaningful if they carry enforceable consequences.

The Exclusionary Rule in Constitutional and Historical Context

Contact Information