Articles Tagged with Powers Law Firm Charlotte

by

If you are facing criminal charges in North Carolina, recent court decisions may directly affect what evidence your lawyer can obtain and how quickly that evidence becomes available. One of the most important of these rulings is State v. Chemuti, a decision that changes how body-camera and dash-camera recordings are requested, reviewed, and used in criminal cases.

Access to law-enforcement video can shape suppression motions, plea negotiations, and trial strategy. When that access is delayed or restricted, the balance of a criminal case may shift in ways that are difficult to correct later. Understanding how discovery works after Chemuti is therefore part of protecting your legal rights from the earliest stage of a prosecution.

For questions about criminal discovery, suppression issues, or how recent North Carolina case law may affect your defense, Bill Powers is available for legal consultation at Powers Law Firm. Call 704-342-4357 to schedule a confidential consultation. Bill Powers is a trial lawyer with more than three decades of courtroom experience handling criminal defense matters in North Carolina, a past President of the North Carolina Advocates for Justice, and a recipient of the James B. McMillan Distinguished Service Award.

Continue reading

by
QUICK ANSWER: In North Carolina, marijuana possession remains illegal under NCGS § 90-94, regardless of changing attitudes in other states. Charlotte courtrooms now explicitly ban marijuana odor with posted signs. While the smell itself isn’t a crime, appearing in court smelling like marijuana can damage your credibility, affect sentencing decisions, and signal disrespect to judges, potentially worsening case outcomes before you say a word.

Table of Contents

Continue reading

by

North Carolina law prohibits the possession, sale, and trafficking of controlled substances. Yet the same State that prosecutes those U.S. revenuer enforcing Prohibition laws in North Carolina, symbolizing state taxation, moonshine raids, and the roots of taxing crime. offenses also taxes and therefore profits them. Is that right? Does that make sense? Should the government profit from crime? Is it OK to tax Drugs? Extortion? What about Illegal Pornography, Prostitution and Human Trafficking? Where do we, the governed, draw the line?

The Controlled Substance Tax, codified at N.C.G.S. § 105-113.105, operates on the premise that illegal drugs have taxable value even though their sale and possession are criminal acts. The idea that “income is income” regardless of source smacks of Machiavelli and a willingness to bend basic moral imperatives. Beneath that procedural logic lies a troubling contradiction, if not outright hypocrisy.

Questions about punishment, profit, and fairness aren’t theoretical when you are the one standing before the court. North Carolina law distinguishes between fines, forfeiture, and taxation, but for clients facing criminal charges, those differences often feel academic. Bill Powers and the Powers Law Firm handle serious criminal matters in Mecklenburg, Union, Iredell, Gaston, Rowan, and Lincoln Counties, examining how the law operates in real courtrooms, not just in theory. Bill Powers is a widely regarded North Carolina criminal defense attorney, educator, and legal commentator with more than thirty-three years of courtroom and trial experience. He is recognized throughout the state for his work on impaired driving, criminal law, and legal education, and is a recipient of the North Carolina State Bar Distinguished Service Award. For select legal matters, Bill Powers consults on a statewide basis. To discuss your case in confidence, TEXT or call 704-342-4357.

Continue reading

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 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

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

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

by

Accessing video evidence, body-cam, and dash-cam video in North Carolina potentially just became a lot harder to obtain. CMPD police officer’s uniform with a body-worn camera attached to the vest. The blurred city of Charlotte skyline in the background suggests an urban Mecklenburg County, North Carolina setting, representing law enforcement video evidence and accountability.

TL;DR Quick Take: North Carolina v. Chemuti limits how defendants can access police body-worn and dash-camera recordings. The Supreme Court held that Rule 45 subpoenas cannot compel production of law-enforcement video. Instead, defendants must file a petition under N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4A in superior court, which is the exclusive procedure for release.

The Chemuti ruling is significant because, unlike many states, North Carolina provides no traditional right to discovery in cases originating in district court.

Continue reading
Contact Information
2412 Arty Ave
Charlotte, NC 28208
Phone: 704-342-4357

Visit Our: Charlotte Divorce or Charlotte Injury Websites

Each case is different and must be evaluated on its individual facts. Prior results are no guarantee that similar results can be achieved in future cases.

We serve clients throughout North Carolina, including, but not limited to, those in the following localities: Mecklenburg County including Charlotte; Gaston County including Gastonia; Iredell County including Statesville and Mooresville; Lincoln County including Lincolnton; and Union County including Monroe and Indian Trail. View More

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2018 – 2026, Powers Law Firm PA
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design