fourth amendment

May 24, 2026

Can police come into my house without a Warrant?

Police can enter a home without a warrant under the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Also called the emergency assistance exception or emergency doctrine, this exception permits warrantless home entry when officers have an objectively reasonable basis to believe someone inside is seriously injured or imminently threatened with serious injury. On January 14, 2026, the United States Supreme Court decided Case v. Montana, reaffirming that probable cause is not required for emergency aid entry while rejecting a lower reasonable-suspicion approach. This guide explains when warrantless entry into a home may be lawful, what Case v. Montana changed, and how North Carolina courts will likely apply the doctrine.

Written by Bill Powers, a North Carolina criminal defense lawyer with 33 years (since 1992) of courtroom experience. Bill is a Board-Certified Criminal Law Specialist through the National Board of Trial Advocacy / National Board of Legal Specialty Certification and a former President of the North Carolina Advocates for Justice. Powers Law Firm represents clients in criminal, traffic, and impaired driving matters in the Charlotte area and accepts select serious felony driving and vehicular homicide cases across North Carolina.

Part I: Search Warrants | Constitutional Foundation

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.

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.”

June 14, 2025

North Carolina’s Influence on the Fourth Amendment and the Bill of Rights

by Carolina Attorneys

The Debate Over Ratification and the Demand for a Bill of Rights

In the aftermath of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, the proposed United States Constitution went to the states for approval. North Carolina emerged as a critical battleground in this ratification debate. Many North Carolinians were divided between Federalists, who supported the new Constitution as written, and Anti-Federalists, who feared it granted too much unchecked power to a central government.

The absence of a clear list of guaranteed individual rights in the federal Constitution became a focal point. North Carolina’s citizens had fresh memories of British abuses of power before and during the Revolutionary era. They worried that without explicit protections, such as safeguards against arbitrary searches and seizures or other infringements, a new federal government might oppress the people just as past tyrannies had. This concern for fundamental liberties set the stage for North Carolina’s insistence on a Bill of Rights.

August 20, 2019

Reasonable Suspicion – Middle Finger to Police

by Carolina Attorneys

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA18-817

Filed: 20 August 2019

August 20, 2019

Search Warrants

by Carolina Attorneys

Search Warrants are subject to Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Without “probable cause,” a search is ordinarily deemed “unreasonable” and therefore improper. As is the case with many legal issues involving criminal charges, there are certain exceptions.

Searches of a home or residence invite additional scrutiny by Courts, given there is a substantial expectation of privacy within “hearth and home.”