Authorities have good reason to be worried. Super Bowl Sunday ranks with St. Patrick's Day, Halloween and the Fourth of July when it comes to alcohol-related accidents. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that 2010's game day saw one person die every 52 minutes in an alcohol-related accident. Drunk driving was linked with 40 percent of all fatal crashes that day.
]]> Safety advocates urge partygoers to take some simple steps to keep themselves and others safe. The first recommendation is to appoint a designated driver -- and to make the job fun and rewarding. Passengers, hosts and commercial establishments can arrange rewards or special perks for designated drivers.If you are having people over, make sure everyone knows they are welcome to stay the night if they're not comfortable driving. It is also a good idea to have numbers for cabs on hand. Game night is a busy time for taxis, so try to keep guests occupied as they wait -- impatience and intoxication will surely lead to carelessness behind the wheel.
Hosts, including bars and restaurants, can stop serving alcohol during the third quarter. Offer coffee and dessert, or have iced tea available.
If nothing else works, friends should take car keys away from anyone they think shouldn't be driving. At small gatherings, hosts can ask for car keys as people arrive; they'll only get them back after the party if they are able to drive safely.
Keeping friends, family members and guests safe isn't complicated, but it can be difficult. A pledge among friends to watch out for each other can go a long way to making it a memorable day for all the right reasons.
Source: Washington Post, "Super Bowl Sunday brings drunk-driving warnings," Ashley Halsey III, Feb. 3, 2012
]]>The official charges are murder, murder of an unborn child, robbery with a dangerous weapon and felonious larceny. The nature of the crime and the defendant's criminal record -- he served time for robbery and breaking and entering -- may result in the prosecutor seeking the death penalty.
]]> According to court documents, the defendant allegedly stabbed the 25-year-old victim during an argument inside the café where both worked. He returned to the apartment he shared with his sister, mother and another man, where he told his sister he had killed the young woman.The victim's boyfriend called 911 and told the dispatcher that he believed the café was being robbed. Six hours passed before police found the victim's body. The dispatcher had written down the wrong address.
New procedures are in place for dispatchers now. They are required to confirm the address with the caller before hanging up.
One of the most controversial provisions of the new law pertains to knowledge of the pregnancy. Before Dec. 1, if an assailant knew the victim was pregnant, and the assault resulted in a miscarriage or stillbirth, police would charge the assailant with a felony one level higher than the underlying crime.
Under the new law, neither the assailant nor the victim needs to know about the pregnancy. If the fetus dies as a result of the crime, the assailant faces a first- or second-degree murder charge. First-degree murder of an unborn child is a class A felony, but the death penalty is not an option. The mandatory sentence is life in prison without possibility of parole.
Reports do not indicate if the victim in this case knew she was pregnant.
Source: Charlotte Observer, "Cox indicted in Flying Biscuit death," Gary L. Wright, Jan. 31, 2012
]]>Commentators agree. During arguments in November, the Court focused on more complex privacy issues; Orwell's "1984" and Big Brother came up more than a few times. The Court seemed to signal that more than an unconstitutional search was at stake here. The issue was also about the role of ever-more sophisticated technology in citizens' everyday lives.
]]> In the decision, penned by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court agreed that the use of the GPS device amounted to a search and did violate the suspect's Fourth Amendment Rights. As far as privacy went, though, Justice Scalia wrote only that the use of GPS may be "an unconstitutional invasion of privacy."For Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and three of his colleagues, the Court's decision skirted the issue of the role of technology in 21st Century society. Alito argued that the holding addressed the fact of the GPS and how it was attached to the suspect's vehicle (a trespass on private property) rather than the use of the GPS device over an extended period of time. He wrote:
For such offenses, society's expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not - and indeed, in the main, simply could not - secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual's car for a very long period.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor praised Alito's argument but agreed with Scalia's opinion. The Court, she said, only had to address the very narrow issue of the trespass on the suspect's property, leaving the "difficult questions" for another time.
For more information about the case, go to our November series, "I see you! Is GPS tracking a Fourth Amendment violation?"
Source: Washington Post, "Warrants needed in GPS tracking," Robert Barnes, Jan. 23, 2012
]]>Occupy Charlotte is the first group to be affected by the law change. The new ordinance specifically prohibits the construction of tents or other temporary shelters on city property. Occupy protesters have camped out on the lawn at old City Hall since October.
]]> Leaders of the local movement say they have had a good relationship with police up to now. Early on, representatives of the Charlotte-Mecklenberg Police Department met with leaders of the Occupy Charlotte movement to discuss the encampment. According to an Occupy leader, the protesters said they were there only to voice their First Amendment rights and to have their grievances heard. Since that meeting, they "haven't had any problems," the Occupy leader said.The new ordinance goes into effect Jan. 30, and most protesters believe most of the campers will leave old City Hall without incident. A handful disagree, though, saying they think some people will not go quietly.
For civil rights groups, both the camping ban and the expanded police authority are troubling. Activists say the ordinance gives law enforcement too much discretion; they will be watching closely to see how that discretion is put to use.
The next step for Occupy Charlotte is to decide what their next step will be. The group plans to meet tonight to discuss the alternatives.
Source: News & Observer, "NC city council OKs broader police powers for DNC," Mitch Weiss, Jan. 24, 2012
]]>Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been working with state legislatures to implement mandates in every state. The organizations believe that zero tolerance is the best approach, and statistics have shown that the interlock devices are more effective than, for example, license revocation.
]]> On the other side of the issue is the American Beverage Institute, a national trade association of restaurants. The ABI believes that alcohol affects people differently, and that a DWI is not a one-size-fits-all crime. MADD's mandate would put an interlock device in the car of the person whose blood alcohol level was just a whisper over 0.08 just as quickly as it would the person who downs five shots of whiskey before getting behind the wheel.The shots of whiskey came into another ABI example. As technology advances, mandates could lead to auto manufacturers installing interlock devices as standard equipment on every vehicle. The ABI points out that the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, in development right now, would measure a driver's BAC through the air in the passenger compartment, through the driver's skin or eye movement, or even through the driver's performance.
Going back to our five shots of whiskey -- taken in rapid succession, those shots will not raise a BAC to 0.08 for a while. How, then, would the devices be calibrated? Would the car's limit just get lower and lower? The ABI also wondered if the devices would be able to differentiate between the driver's breath and the passenger's if the sample is just taken from inside the car.
For MADD and the CDC, though, the objective is to save lives by keeping impaired drivers off the roads. If the ignition interlock can do that, as the research says it can, then states should use it.
Source: MSNBC, "Curbing drunken drivers: Should ignition interlock be required on every car?" Jim Gold, Jan. 5, 2012
]]>Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are urging legislatures to adopt ignition interlock mandates for every level of offender. Anyone over the limit who is convicted of DWI would have the device installed on his vehicle.
]]> Opponents say the legal limit mandate goes too far. The American Beverage Institute, for example, points out that mandates remove the judge from the criminal process. Doing so puts the person who was a sip over the limit at a disadvantage; both this person and the heavy, habitual drinker are subject to the mandate.The ABI is an association of restaurant owners. Its mission, according to its website, is to protect "the on-premise drinking experience" and to defend "the right to drink moderately and responsibly prior to driving." The organization has stated publicly that restaurants support reasonable DWI laws, that restaurants would rather have ten customers have one drink each than have one customer have ten drinks.
As technology advances, too, the ignition interlock may be standard equipment on all vehicles. The ABI believes there are more issues with that than the obvious "Big Brother" risk. We'll discuss those in our next post.
Source: MSNBC, "Curbing drunken drivers: Should ignition interlock be required on every car?" Jim Gold, Jan. 5, 2012
]]>The organizations leading the charge are Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They see interlock mandates as the best way for law enforcement to address repeat offenders -- just one step along the road to eliminating drunk driving altogether.
]]> The interlock device works like a Breathalyzer. The driver must take the breath test for the car to start -- but the car will only start if the driver's blood alcohol level is below a set limit (often lower than the state's legal limit).MADD used to encourage states to suspend repeat and habitual offenders' licenses. The laws weren't effective though: As many as 75 percent of convicted drivers ignored their suspension. The organization turned its attention to earlier interventions about six years ago; rather than revoking privileges, interlock laws work to assure that offenders are sober before they get behind the wheel.
Fifteen states have ignition interlock laws right now; 24 states require Breathalyzer-type locks for multiple offenders and offenders caught with alcohol levels well above the legal limit. Another 10 states, including North Carolina, are considering interlock bills.
Critics say some of the laws sail a little too close to the wind, though. We'll discuss their concerns in our next post.
Source: MSNBC, "Curbing drunken drivers: Should ignition interlock be required on every car?" Jim Gold, Jan. 5, 2012
]]>The story that started the discussion took place in another state. A young mother and her baby were hiding in the bedroom as intruders broke into her mobile home and made their way toward the bedroom door. She called 911, explained the situation and asked if it was OK to shoot the men if they came at her and her baby. The dispatcher told her to protect her baby in any way she could. She shot and killed one man; the other fled.
]]> By definition, the Castle Doctrine comes into play when the intrusion is in someone's home. Some states have extended the justification to intruders in workplaces as well. The doctrine helps you avoid criminal charges if you defend your territory under certain circumstances. You need not retreat.The current North Carolina law covers a home or "other place of residence." Courts have broadly defined the terms to include the yard and other buildings, like a barn or detached garage. A home's porch is included, too, but a prison complex is not considered an inmate's home.
The 2011 amendment to the North Carolina law applies to offenses occurring on or after Dec. 1, 2011. The statute includes the current definitions of home and residence and adds any temporary or permanent building with a roof over it, including a tent.
Significantly, the amendment expands the defense to a motor vehicle and a workplace. Perhaps the latter is a response to the nursing home shootings in 2009.
Legal commentators have mixed reactions to the expanded law. On one hand, the protection for the use of force may deter crimes like car-jacking and workplace shooting sprees. However, the idea that a suspected intruder can be shot is unsettling to others who fear jittery or trigger-happy coworkers using deadly force against an innocent party.
There is also a question about the need to adopt Castle Doctrine laws at all. Case law reviews do not come up with a single homeowner in any state being prosecuted for defending his "castle."
Sources:
North Carolina General Statutes Annotated § 14-51.1, § 14-51.2 via Westlaw
CSMonitor.com, "Oklahoma mom kills home invader," Patrik Jonsson, Jan. 5, 2012
]]>Today, authorities cleared her of any wrongdoing. She was clearly acting in self-defense, and she was in her own home. This story didn't unfold in North Carolina, but the result would likely have been the same, because of something called the "Castle Doctrine."
]]> Yes, the term is derived from the old saying that a man's home is his castle. The theory is that a person may protect his home/castle and his loved ones from violent attack and not be subject to criminal charges. The law goes way back to English common law and, over time, has expanded in many ways, such as, for example, protection not just of family but of all innocent parties.Mostly, for our purposes, the Castle Doctrine has come to be associated with the use of deadly force in one's home to protect self or others from an attacker or intruder who poses a risk of attack. That's quite a mouthful, for sure, and the courts have spent decades deciding what constitutes an attacker, what counts as a home and what conditions must be present for the killing to be justifiable.
Over the past few years, states have begun to put the common law rule into statute. The North Carolina statute was rewritten last year, in fact; the revised statute went into effect on Dec. 1.
We'll talk about that and other states' approaches in our next post.
Source: CSMonitor.com, "Oklahoma mom kills home invader," Patrik Jonsson, Jan. 5, 2012
]]>The change is one result of the General Assembly's efforts to cut costs at the Department of Correction while improving early intervention programs. Legislators estimated the state could save $33 million per year by allowing jails to take custody of more offenders.
]]> According to the department, it costs the state $64.59 per day to house a prisoner in a minimum-custody facility. Officials say the law change will affect about 4,500 people annually, more than one-tenth of the state's prison population.Lawmakers see the law as a win for the prisons, the county jails and the communities they serve. The prisons will reduce costs and problems associated with crowding. The jails will fill beds that until now have gone empty. The money saved by the state will fund community-based programs designed to deter crime.
Counties need not participate, but those who do will collect $40 per inmate per day from a fund managed by the North Carolina Sheriff's Association. The fund itself will be financed by state-collected court fees set to debut in 2012 as well.
To date, more than half of the state's counties have agreed to participate. But the law applies to all offenders sentenced to six months or less. A Sheriff's Association representative emphasized that offenders will be housed in the county where they were sentenced whenever possible; if that county is not participating in the program or does not have room, the offender will be housed as close to that county as possible.
Source: News & Observer, "Misdemeanor inmates head to jail, not prison," Dec. 29, 2011
]]>The crime occurred in 2008, when, according to prosecutors, the defendant and another man forced the 22-year-old woman into her car. They then drove to ATMs and withdrew money from the victim's account. A few hours later, the victim was found dead. She'd been shot several times.
]]> The murder conviction carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole. The robbery and kidnapping convictions added 28 years to the sentence.The other man involved in the crime has been tried and convicted in a federal court. He is currently serving a life sentence in a federal facility.
The defendant will soon be tried in connection with a murder that occurred a few months before the Chapel Hill student's. The victim in that case was a student at Duke University. His death occurred when Durham police were dealing with a string of robberies. Two other men and two juveniles were arrested and charged in connection with those crimes. The defendant here was charged with the Duke student's murder on the same day he was arrested for the Chapel Hill student's murder.
Jurors declined to discuss the case with reporters. Defense counsel said this had been a difficult case, adding that the defendant planned to appeal.
Source: News & Observer, "Lovette guilty of murdering Carson; gets life sentence," Anne Blythe, Dec. 21, 2011
]]>Police continue to look for two other suspects. In most of the incidents, officials say three men were involved. Officials in Cary reported two similar crimes committed by just two men.
]]> Witnesses described the robbers as black men, about 6 feet tall, clad in "bulky jackets." Police said the clothing made it difficult for witnesses to determine the culprits' body types. They wore bandanas to cover their faces.This is not the first arrest for the suspect in custody. At age 17, he was charged with armed robbery. The suspect was released from prison just prior to these robberies. According to court records, he had been sentenced to five to six months for conspiracy to commit larceny from a person. He was on probation when he was arrested today.
Only one of the robberies netted more than $500 for the perpetrators, and that was the first. The fast food restaurant reported handing over $519 to the robbers. The robbery of a gas station made headlines when the suspects made off with $1.
Source: News & Observer, "Raleigh police make arrest in string of armed robberies," Thomasi McDonald, Dec. 16, 2011
]]>The bill would have significantly changed the law by eliminating the admissibility of statistical evidence in inmates' efforts to have their sentences overturned. District attorneys and Republican legislators supported the measure vigorously; both groups have long argued that the law acts as a "back-door" elimination of the death penalty.
]]> In her veto message, Gov. Perdue addressed some of their concerns. She affirmed both her support of the death penalty and her commitment to ensuring that racial prejudice plays no role in prosecution and sentencing of any criminal suspect.Critics of the Racial Justice Act claimed that the law, in combination with a U.S. Supreme Court decision, would put dozens of inmates back on the street. A successful challenge would equal a release from prison.
Supporters of the act point to other case law that backs up the statute. The only remedy for a finding of bias would be commuting the death sentence to a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole.
Critics have also argued that the petitions from death row inmates will clog the court system. Worse, the courts would be wasting resources on hearing claims that had been appealed over and over again.
Others point out that repeal of the statistical evidence provision would likely spark a number of lawsuits -- clogging the system. They also urge prosecutors and other critics to allow at least one case to make its way through the system. Without any experience putting the Racial Justice Act to work, neither side's argument is on solid ground.
Political commentators say the chance of an override is slim. Most agree, though, that the veto will come up during the governor's re-election campaign next year.
Source: News & Observer, "Perdue veto saves death-row appeal law," Craig Jarvis, Dec. 15, 2011
]]>The law requires first that there be a chase and, second, that the suspect be charged with a felony. The felony charge authorizes the sheriff to seize the vehicle. If the suspect is convicted of the crime, the sheriff may sell the car. (The law does include exceptions for teens who have no record and who are driving a family member's car.)
]]> Yet another law allows a homeowner to shoot an intruder -- with a lawfully-owned weapon -- if the homeowner believes he is in danger of serious bodily harm, including death. The law no longer requires the shooter to justify his actions; instead, he is presumed to be exempt from criminal or civil liability.The General Assembly was moved by the death of Zahra Baker to pass another law. The 10-year-old was murdered and dismembered last year. Under the new law, it is a crime to dismember a body to hide a possible crime or to hide evidence of an unnatural death.
Criminal defense attorneys also noted a law that affects offenders after they are released from prison. In the past, only the worst offenders were subject to probation after release. A new law broadened the measure to impose probation on all offenders for at least nine months but no longer than a year following release.
With the new laws and the increased penalties, it makes sense for anyone accused of a crime to consult with a criminal defense lawyer as soon as possible.
Source: ABC11/abclocal.go.com, "35 new laws taking effect Thursday in NC," Gary D. Robertson, Dec. 1, 2011
]]>As we said, most of the laws add new crimes or increase penalties. The law we highlighted in our last post -- allowing the court to expunge criminal records for some underage offenders -- is just one of two that increase protections for suspects or offenders.
]]> The second law grew out of the News & Observer's (and then the state's) investigation of the crime lab at the State Bureau of Investigation. One of the chief complaints from defense attorneys was that the lab often failed to turn over evidence favorable to the defendant.With the new law, investigators must turn over all evidence in a felony case to defense counsel. This must happen even if the prosecutor fails to put in a formal request for the information.
The General Assembly passed the "Run and You're Done" law as a public safety measure. The law deals with high-speed chases on public roads. We've all heard the stories of car crashes that result from such chases; this law is meant to deter suspects from fleeing police by allowing officers to seize a suspect's car.
We'll get into the details in our next post.
Source: ABC11/abclocal.go.com, "35 new laws taking effect Thursday in NC," Gary D. Robertson, Dec. 1, 2011
]]>