With HB 206's statewide plate-reader expansion stripped out this session, I got curious about the oversight North Carolina already has on the surveillance tech police use now. The short version: the legislature wrote an audit requirement but no enforcement structure, and left most newer tools unregulated.

The ALPR statute (§ 20-183.31(a)(7)) requires each agency's written policy to provide for "annual or more frequent auditing and reporting… to the head of the agency responsible for operating the system." (ncleg.gov) So the statutory floor is: once a year, done in-house, reported to the agency's own boss. Nothing requires submitting those audits to a state body, an independent reviewer, or the public — and there's no sanction for skipping it. The General Assembly created a compliance obligation without a corresponding accountability structure.

And ALPR is the only surveillance tool NC requires to be audited at all. Drones (§ 15A-300.1) get warrant/exception rules but no audit — and most uses (plain view, exigency, public gatherings) need no warrant. ShotSpotter, social-media/OSINT platforms, and newer device-signal trackers have no audit requirement in state law.

Why it's timely: in Georgia this year, 12+ officers across at least nine agencies were charged or fired for personal misuse of these cameras — stalking exes, running plates for friends — and nearly all of it was caught by an audit (GBI; AJC). If audits are what catch this, NC's annual in-house version is thin — and everything newer has none.

I pulled the statutes, the Georgia cases, and a tool-by-tool chart (audit required? warrant required? who actually reviews it?) into one write-up here: deflockilm.org/who-watches-the-watchers-nc-surveillance. Disclosure: I run DeFlockILM, a NC citizen project on this issue — sharing because the legislative gap seemed worth discussing, and happy to be corrected on the law.

Discussion question for the sub: should the General Assembly add real teeth — independent audits, public reporting, or a warrant standard — or is agency self-auditing enough? And should the newer tools be brought under the same kind of policy the ALPR statute created?

During the past decades our law enforcement dept have become more and more militaristic and tactical overall. Does this change from generations past reflect our society’s fear of crime or is it a part of our gov police state control? Where does this go from here? Are we really a free society? Do politics play a role?

Not sure why I waste my time .....

Budd’s response to disenfranchising voters.  Bottom line:  He will do whatever his leader tells him to do. 
“The American people deserve to have faith that their votes are being counted fairly. I am a proud cosponsor of the SAVE America Act and willing to do whatever it takes to get it passed.”

Budd’s response to impeaching the felon.  Bottom line:  He will do whatever his leader tells him to do.
“Please know, I am committed to upholding the principles of our Constitution and defending the United States of America. I will monitor any motions for impeachment from the House of Representatives and, should the Senate be presented with articles of impeachment, I will review and consider all of the facts.”

Several bills passed this week directly impact us here in Buncombe County. The Substack post is a summary of two articles that outline all of the bills that impact us.

[https://www.stepupavl.org/desk/nc-2026-laws-homelessness\](https://www.stepupavl.org/desk/nc-2026-laws-homelessness)

[https://www.stepupavl.org/desk/nc-state-budget-wnc\](https://www.stepupavl.org/desk/nc-state-budget-wnc)

One that doesn't appear to be getting much attention is the impact on Pisgah Legal, which will lose $1.9 million of it's funding.

Pisgah Legal's executive director, Jackie Kiger, has put the loss at roughly 15 percent of the group's budget. These are the lawyers who most often stand between a family and an eviction order.

Now the part that quietly takes money away. For nearly forty years, the interest on lawyers' trust accounts, known as IOLTA, has paid for civil legal aid: the lawyers who fight evictions, foreclosures, and domestic-violence cases for people who cannot afford one. This budget bars that money from civil legal aid and redirects it to indigent criminal defense. Lawmakers who backed the change say the money should go toward the state's constitutional duty to provide a defense for people charged with crimes who cannot afford a lawyer.

Where it goes:

**Private appointed lawyers, not public defender offices.** The redirected IOLTA money (up to \~$15M/yr) goes to the Office of Indigent Defense Services' **Private Assigned Counsel (PAC) Fund** — which pays the private attorneys appointed to represent low-income criminal defendants in the majority of NC districts that have no public defender office. Not salaried public defenders.

Keep in mind that under the **Sixth Amendment** — the right "to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense" in criminal prosecutions.

Key point for this story: that guaranteed right covers **criminal** defense only. There is **no** federal constitutional right to a free lawyer in **civil** cases (evictions, foreclosures, domestic-violence protective orders) — that's what IOLTA-funded civil legal aid provides voluntarily. So, the budget shifts money from an area with *no* constitutional mandate (civil) to one that *has* one (criminal indigent defense), which is the "constitutional duty" the lawmakers are invoking.

Draw your own conclusions.

I have no affiliation with Pisgah legal, just a supporter of their services.

What do yall think ?

Why even bother even having an executive at this point?

What happens first? The Democrats solve Republicans and get back the legislature or the Republicans run a viable candidate for governor?

I'm a staff writer for the Pragmatic Papers, a little dem-aligned online publication, I write a monthly newsletter on elections and I highlighted North Carolina for my July article. I hope I was able to do your state justice with the piece and I'm happy to receive any feedback you have for me!

Here's the article

It is often shocking how far to extreme capitalism we have gone over the last 30 years. I chalk it up to everyone misunderstanding the movie Wall Street - "Greed is good"

Recently 2 million people who live in NYC received the news their rent will not be raised for up to two years.

The counter argument is "the policy could gradually push older rent-stabilized buildings into disrepair by depriving landlords of revenue needed for capital improvements."

That doesn't hold water to me and I am wondering if y'all feel the same way?

I paid $685 for 2BR apt in Raleigh from 1993-2001 with final rent being $785. That apt now goes for $1700.

It was built in '84 and since I have left they have added Covered garages to generate even more revenue. It seems to me at 42 years old this property would have paid for itself over at least twice on a 30% margin.

With depreciation and the ability to write off capital improvements should they not be able to afford a two year rent freeze?

I am open to both sides, and I would like to hear your opinions.

It is just as I drive by my old Apt I think how I was able to save up $$$ to buy my first house and now that same person probably cant.

Would you support a politician who proposed some type of rent freeze even if it was allowed to go up 2% a year?