ReportWire

Tag: NC courts

  • Cabarrus County ends ‘draconian’ comment rules about cursing, personal attacks

    [ad_1]

    James Campbell is escorted out of a April 15, 2024, Cabarrus County commission meeting after he addressed members of the commission by name. The county agreed to settle with Campbell.

    James Campbell is escorted out of a April 15, 2024, Cabarrus County commission meeting after he addressed members of the commission by name. The county agreed to settle with Campbell.

    Screenshot via CabCoTV.

    Cabarrus County commissioners voted 4-1 on Tuesday night to approve a new public-participation policy that rolls back restrictions on what residents can say at board meetings, a move commissioners said was necessary to comply with a recent North Carolina Court of Appeals decision on free speech.

    The change came after months of scrutiny surrounding the county’s public-comment rules, which drew a federal lawsuit last year after a resident was removed from a meeting and banned from attending meetings for 90 days after he allegedly violated the county’s policy.

    While the new policy removes restrictions on profanity, personal insults and other harsh language in public comment, one commissioner said the change could invite abusive language into county meetings.

    “We can basically allow hate speech in here under this policy,” Commissioner Jeff Jones warned, arguing the revised rules could intimidate residents from speaking for fear of “abuse” and could lead to more censorship rather than free-speech rights. “I cannot promote hate speech, and I can not promote any policy that allows obscenity, vulgarity and profanity. I think it degrades the civic discourse of this meeting. It can lower the standards of debate. I think it lowers the standards of Cabarrus County.”

    Commissioners approved the new policy after County Attorney Doug Hall said the board was responding to guidance from a state court case, State v. Barthel. The case, decided in November, involved charges tied to a profane banner displayed during an Avery County Board of Commissioners meeting. The Court of Appeals vacated a conviction under North Carolina’s “disrupting an official meeting” law, finding the speech at issue was protected by the First Amendment and emphasizing that government officials “cannot require citizens to be polite when criticizing their representatives.”

    “I certainly hear what Commissioner Jones is saying, but I think these changes that you all are considering tonight are more or less necessary for us to comply with this new case,” Hall said.

    During Tuesday’s meeting, Commissioner Larry Pittman said he personally disliked profanity and vulgar speech, but said he believed the board had little choice.

    “I don’t want that stuff in here, but if we’re constrained by a lawsuit that says we can’t do that anymore, we need to work on changing some minds in the judiciary on that,” he said. “And meanwhile, we have to put up with it. I hate that, but that’s just how it is.”

    The new Cabarrus policy vote follows prior controversy over the county’s old rules. Last month, Cabarrus County agreed to publicly acknowledge it had misspoken about its participation policy and provide training for newly elected or appointed commissioners after settling a free-speech lawsuit brought by a county resident. The lawsuit argued the county violated the First Amendment by removing a resident from a meeting and banning him.

    Commissioner Ian Patrick, who made the motion to approve the new rules on Tuesday night, told The Charlotte Observer before the meeting that the policy was being updated as part of the board’s annual review process, but also because the Court of Appeals “basically said that there are almost no restrictions on what the public can and can’t say in public meetings,” aside from the need to keep meetings orderly.

    Patrick said he believed the old Cabarrus rules were too restrictive even before the ruling, describing them as “draconian” and objecting to language requiring residents to show “respect” toward commissioners.

    “They absolutely do not have to respect us if they don’t,” Patrick said. “We work for the public. It’s not the other way around. … I believe that it should be a free-speech policy.”

    Patrick reiterated his point on Tuesday night, saying public officials are obligated to listen even when the public’s speech is harsh.

    “We are public officials. We are accountable to the people,” Patrick said. “If they have something they want to say to us, whether we like it or not, we have to sit up here and listen to it. … I believe this policy should have been changed long ago.”

    This story was originally published January 21, 2026 at 7:45 AM.

    Related Stories from Charlotte Observer

    Nora O’Neill

    The Charlotte Observer

    Nora O’Neill is the regional accountability reporter for The Charlotte Observer. She previously covered local government and politics in Florida.

    [ad_2]

    Nora O’Neill

    Source link

  • Rollback of reforms? Advocates express concerns with new NC juvenile justice proposal

    Rollback of reforms? Advocates express concerns with new NC juvenile justice proposal

    [ad_1]

    A proposal that would require some 16- and 17-year-olds to be tried initially as adults in North Carolina’s courts took a step forward on Tuesday, despite concerns by some that it would roll back protections for youths.

    Currently, juveniles under 18 are tried in the state’s juvenile court after a petition is filed.

    If a 16- or 17-year-old juvenile commits a Class A through G felony, then the case must be transferred from juvenile court — after probable cause is found or the teen is indicted — to the state’s superior courts to be tried as an adult. A prosecutor may also decline to transfer certain felonies to superior court.

    Class A-G felonies range from high-level offenses such as murder to mid-level felonies such as committing a robbery using threats or force.

    But a new bill that has bipartisan backing would change this transfer process.

    Changes under the proposal

    House Bill 834, among other provisions, would modify the state’s definition of a delinquent juvenile to exclude 16 to 18-year-olds who commit Class A-E felonies.

    This means these cases will now start in superior court.

    The bill would make sure “that the proper cases, if they do exist, can be sent to juvenile court,” said Chuck Spahos, a lobbyist for the N.C. Conference of District Attorneys, a state-funded association that lobbies the legislature.

    Critics said these changes would reverse criminal justice reforms, including provisions passed into law in 2017 and implemented in 2019 known as Raise the Age.

    Proponents, however, called it a procedural change that would streamline processes.

    ‘Raise the age’ concerns

    The Raise the Age law pulled 16- and 17-year-olds accused of misdemeanors and low-level felonies like larcenies, break-ins and other nonviolent crimes, from the adult system into the juvenile justice system.

    Under the law, all criminal cases for juveniles up to age 18 begin in juvenile court, with a requirement that higher-level felonies be transferred to adult court following a hearing or indictment..

    “We are kind of reversing the order of operation we have now,” Sen. Lisa Grafstein, a Raleigh Democrat said Tuesday during a committee hearing at the General Assembly.

    “This seems to be a fairly significant rollback of ‘Raise the Age,’ which I think we made a broad commitment to. I just wanted to highlight this because it’s concerning,” Grafstein said.

    Spahos said there are “less than 500 cases a year that are transferred now to superior court. This is not a mass undoing of Raise the Age.”

    “These are the cases that end up in superior court anyways, and it’s agreed by everyone that’s been involved in this,” including the state Division of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, “that this is just cutting some of the procedural parts of that out while making sure that the proper cases, if they do exist, can be sent to juvenile court,” Spahos said.

    Sen. Danny Britt, a Robeson County Republican, echoed this, saying “the majority of these violent crimes are actually being processed in superior court anyways.”

    “When you have a district like Robeson County, for example, what you have is an extreme backlog of juvenile court cases in the juvenile court that are there unnecessarily longer than what they should, bogging down the docket,” he said.

    Kerwin Pittman with social justice advocacy group Emancipate NC echoed Grafstein’s concerns on the rollback of Raise the Age and said ”this isn’t just a procedural change.”

    This will put “juveniles essentially in a position where they will no longer be able to regain a sense or restorative justice for them because it’s gonna take them to an adult setting.”

    Tara Muller with Disability Rights North Carolina said this bill will affect children with disabilities who make up the vast majority of the youth in the criminal justice system.

    The bill — which has already passed the House — was approved by a Senate judiciary committee following amendments and now moves to the rules committee, where bills often go prior to moving to the floor for a vote, if approved.

    Related stories from Raleigh News & Observer

    Luciana Perez Uribe Guinassi is a politics reporter for the News & Observer. She reports on health care, including mental health and Medicaid expansion; higher education; hurricane recovery efforts and lobbying.Luciana previously worked as a Roy W. Howard Fellow at Searchlight New Mexico, an investigative news organization.

    [ad_2]

    Luciana Perez Uribe Guinassi

    Source link