PARTON LAW, PLLC
  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Litigation >
      • Administrative Agency Contests
      • Animal Law
      • Attorney-Client Privilege
      • Business & Contractual Disputes >
        • Avoiding Litigation
        • Strategic Use of Statutory Liens
      • Construction Litigation
      • Corporate Shareholder Rights Litigation
      • Defamation, Libel & Slander
      • Owners’ Association Disputes
    • Volunteer Services & Pro-Bono Work
    • Referrals
  • Testimonials
  • Contact
    • English
  • Legal Team
    • Corey V. Parton
    • Walton H. Walker III
    • Traci Fleury
    • S. Sunny Britt
    • Brittany McEachern
  • RESULTS
  • In The News
  • Law Blogs
  • Client Resources
    • Helpful Links for Clients
    • Military & First Responder Appreciation Program
    • Make a Payment
    • Privacy Policy
  • FAQ
704-376-4488

Law Blogs

Race Tracking on the Roads

10/30/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture
North Carolina’s General Assembly has come up with a creative way to prevent police officers from selectively enforcing traffic laws based on a person’s race, ethnicity, age or gender.  Under North Carolina General Statute §143B-903 et seq., police officers are assigned an anonymous ID number.  Then, for each traffic stop, they are required to collect and maintain information relating to the aforementioned characteristics of the driver, in addition to: the alleged traffic violation leading to the stop, whether the stop led to any criminal charges, whether there was a search conducted; whether any contraband was found; whether force was used; and whether any injuries resulted; in addition to other relevant factors. See N.C.G.S. §143B-903(a)(1)-(15).  The correlation between the anonymous ID number and the individual officer is then available to criminal defendants via court order. See N.C.G.S. §143B-903(d).  There isn’t much available with respect to the legislative history of this law, but presumably the purpose is to identify which officers are selectively enforcing traffic laws based on constitutionally protected classes.  This would arm defendants with statistical evidence to support assertions that their stop was pre-textual and unconstitutional.  This defendants’-weapon would then also serve as a shield for police officers, enabling them to rebut frivolous claims that they were stopping drivers based on race, gender etc. with hard, irrefutable evidence of their previous conduct.  

​There is one glaring problem with this law: police departments aren’t following it.  The only traffic stop statistics available on the North Carolina Department of Justice’s website are by Agency (http://trafficstops.ncdoj.gov/Default.aspx?pageid=2), which is little help to a defendant trying to prove  that their rights were violated by an individual officer.  The statute doesn’t proscribe a remedy for when police departments are non-compliant, so it’s difficult to see what incentive there is to actually comply with the law.  

We recently made a motion for dismissal in a District Court case involving serious criminal charges that stemmed from a traffic stop of an African-American male for expired registration.  Our argument was that, because of the police department’s non-compliance with General Statute §143B-903, the defendant should be entitled to a presumption that the law was selectively enforced and that his rights were violated.  Otherwise what reason does the State have to ever comply with this law?  The counterargument being that the statute does not provide a specific remedy for non-compliance, and there was no conclusive evidence of pretext on the part of the officer (as is the problem with most equal protection violation claims).  The charges were dismissed prior to a decision on the motion, so what the outcome would have been remains uncertain.

For more information on North Carolina Statutes and Constitutional rights, contact Parton & Associates, PLLC.

​Drafted by Corey V. Parton, Esquire.



0 Comments

Dress for Arrest

10/2/2015

1 Comment

 
Judges and district attorneys are people, just like you and me.  Whether right or wrong, people often form initial impressions based on appearances; especially with respect to characteristics that are completely within an individuals control, such as their apparel.  For example, a judge will likely make the assumption that a defendant is gainfully employed if they show up to court wearing their work uniform.  The opposite assumption may be made by a district attorney when a defendant appears wearing house shoes and pajama pants.  It's for this reason that we advise our clients to "arrive early and dress professionally" when appearing in court.  

I've seen plenty of defendants who clearly weren't given that advice during my time in court.  The following is a list of some of the worst examples of damaging apparel I've seen defendants sporting:
  • T-shirt that read "Unit 187 Homicide"
  • T-shirt that read "Play Ball" above a picture of a voluptuous female covered only by a baseball bat worn by a defendant charged with assaulting a female.
  • T-shirt that read "Only God Can Judge Me"
  • Pajama pants covered with marijuana leaves worn by (you guessed it) a defendant charged with possession of marijuana.
  • T-shirt that read "Villain" worn while Defendant was pleading guilty to possession of stolen goods.  The Judge had him turn around, and asked onlookers to vote by way of raised hands as to whether or not wearing the shirt was respectful.  He then threatened to give the Defendant "five extra days for stupidity", but decided otherwise after Defendant gave a candid apology. 


1 Comment

     

    The law applies differently in each situation.  Nothing on this page should be construed as or be relied upon as legal advice. 
    ​

    Parton Law's attorneys blog about issues important to their clients, and potential clients. ​

    Archives

    December 2022
    August 2022
    January 2022
    November 2021
    September 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    June 2019
    October 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    February 2017
    December 2016
    September 2016
    July 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    October 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015

DISCLAIMER:
​Inclusion in laudatory organizations is not intended to represent that a particular result can be guaranteed or expected in your case. Each case is unique and must be evaluated separately.  Membership standards are available and can be obtained by visiting each organization's individual website.  



​​CONTACT US  |  MAKE A PAYMENT  |  LAW BLOG  |  PRIVACY POLICY

Parton Law, PLLC - Charlotte Lawyers
122 N. McDowell Street, Charlotte, NC 28204

 704-376-4488

©2023 Parton Law, PLLC - All Rights Reserved.

​

  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Litigation >
      • Administrative Agency Contests
      • Animal Law
      • Attorney-Client Privilege
      • Business & Contractual Disputes >
        • Avoiding Litigation
        • Strategic Use of Statutory Liens
      • Construction Litigation
      • Corporate Shareholder Rights Litigation
      • Defamation, Libel & Slander
      • Owners’ Association Disputes
    • Volunteer Services & Pro-Bono Work
    • Referrals
  • Testimonials
  • Contact
    • English
  • Legal Team
    • Corey V. Parton
    • Walton H. Walker III
    • Traci Fleury
    • S. Sunny Britt
    • Brittany McEachern
  • RESULTS
  • In The News
  • Law Blogs
  • Client Resources
    • Helpful Links for Clients
    • Military & First Responder Appreciation Program
    • Make a Payment
    • Privacy Policy
  • FAQ