search and seizure

October 29, 2025

The Future of the Exclusionary Rule in North Carolina

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.”

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.