At Greenwood Law, our experienced attorneys have a wealth of knowledge and expertise in a wide range of legal practice areas, including criminal defense, family law, estate planning, and immigration law. We are committed to providing the best possible legal counsel on behalf of each and every one of our clients and are proud to showcase our track record of success.
Disclaimer: Every case is different, and past success does not guarantee future results. With that being said, our team’s mastery of the legal process highlighted in these success stories is why we consistently receive referrals from both current clients and other law firms alike.
Student Searched on School Property for Investigation of Off-Campus Crime; Gets Charged with Weapon on School Property and Marijuana
Attorney: Dylan W. Greenwood
Charge: Weapon on Educational Property; Possession of Marijuana
Case Result: Dismissed by Court due to Motion to Suppress for Improper Search
County: Forsyth
What Happened
Police were investigating a carjacking that happened off school property and they believed that students at the school may have been involved. The following day, police, along with school officials, brought the client to the office and immediately began searching his bookbag and patting him down. Police admitted that this search was done because of the events that happened the day before. Police found a knife and marijuana in the bookbag.
Searches of Students
School officials have broad powers to search students when it comes to ensuring school safety and a calm learning environment. Almost any search for those reasons by school officials would pass a court’s scrutiny and be allowed. However, these rules change when it is an officer conducting a search for an investigation of an event that occurred off school property. These searches are under the same scrutiny as any search done without a warrant—probable cause.
Read our Message to Parents here.
Warrantless Searches
The Constitution protects you from unreasonable, warrantless searches and seizures. However, courts have granted exceptions for some searches without a warrant. These typically occur when there is enough evidence to show that it is more probable than not that criminal activity is happening and there is an important reason to justify the immediate search. Oftentimes, this is due to officer safety and/or concerns about evidence being destroyed.
Charges Dismissed for Improper Search
In all criminal cases, Greenwood Law looks to protect your constitutional rights immediately. This case was no different. This client’s constitutional rights were trampled by this unconstitutional, warrantless search, and we felt it was our duty to bring this to a court’s attention. When this occurs, we file what is called a Motion to Suppress. These motions prevent evidence obtained through unconstitutional means from being presented to a court. We filed our Motion to Suppress due to the police not obtaining a warrant for the search. The court granted our motion and dismissed all charges against the client.
Feel that You Were Unlawfully Searched?
Filing a Motion to Suppress is complicated. In some cases, it is required for the motion to be done in writing before ever going into court. Often times, it is in your best interests for a written motion to be filed anyway. These motions require lots of legal research and preparation. Experienced attorneys understand what issues to look for and how to present your case.
Contact a Criminal Defense Attorney Today
To speak with one of our experienced criminal law attorneys at Greenwood Law, please call us right away at 336-794-6138. We are always ready to listen to you and fight for your rights. If you feel that you were unlawfully searched or are facing charges for a weapon on educational property and/or possession of marijuana, contact us today for a free initial consultation.
Forsyth County Domestic Violence Case Results
Couple Calls 911 After Parent Falls and Gets Charged with Child Abuse
Attorney: Dylan W. Greenwood
Charge: Child Abuse
Case Result: Dismissed by Court Upon Completion of a Conditional Discharge
Our clients had friends over after putting their toddler to bed. Later on that night, one of the parents tripped over a piece of furniture and hit his head in the fall. Believing the parent had suffered a head injury, 911 was called and a police officer responded with EMS. The friends left before first responders arrived. The police officer believed that all remaining adults in the residence were under the influence of what he believed to be marijuana. The officer issued a citation for both parents due to these circumstances.
Upon retaining our legal services, we immediately sent our clients for a full panel of drug tests. The full panel of tests came back negative for all substances, but the officer involved was adamant that they must have been under the influence of some substance. The statute for child abuse does not require the actual substance be proven, so we were met with resistance from the District Attorney. This led to a Conditional Discharge in which our clients were required to plead guilty in court with the stipulation that the clients complete a set of requirements in a specific amount of time. Our clients successfully completed the Conditional Discharge program. With the clean drug test and our representation, their only requirement was to not get in trouble for six months.
Once the Court granted their dismissal, our office immediately began the expunction process. Within weeks, their records were completely clear and no employer would be able to see their initial charges on a background check, allowing our clients to move on with their lives and careers.
Not Guilty for Domestic Violence Protective Order Violation
Attorney: Dylan W. Greenwood
Case: Domestic Violence Protective Order Violation
Case Result: Not Guilty at Trial
Our client was alleged to have violated an ex parte 50-B domestic violence protective order by returning to his marital home. Our client’s ex swore out a private warrant based on allegedly tracking the client’s phone without their knowledge. Tracking another via a cellphone without their knowledge is a crime in North Carolina. It is known as cyberstalking. Knowing that the basis for the allegations was a crime, we felt confident taking this to trial. Moreover, allegations such as domestic violence protective order violations are placed into Forsyth County’s domestic violence court. This court requires an accused defendant to either plea or take the matter to trial. We felt that one of two things would happen. Either the accuser would not testify about how they allegedly knew our client’s whereabouts, or if it was about to be brought up, we would be ready to object. The accuser did not testify about how they allegedly knew our client’s whereabouts. Therefore, many of the statements the accuser tried to make did not have a proper foundation and were purely speculative. The Court granted our objections and kept the testimony out.
The Court found our client not guilty.
Winston Salem Business Owner Found Not Guilty of Domestic Violence Protective Order Violations
Charge: Domestic Violence Protective Order Violation
Case Result: Dismissal of 50-B, DVPO violation — Not Guilty
Our client has a child in common with a local woman. She initiated a Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO), signed in 2019. The two parties have a custody order in place in which it is specified as to how to exchange the minor child. On one occasion there was a dispute between the child’s mother and a member of the client’s family involving the drop off. A DVPO was initiated and later modified in May of 2019 without the client present or aware of the modifications. The client was subsequently arrested for multiple DVPO violations and held in custody. It was alleged that our client called the state’s witness numerous times.
First, we pulled the phone records of our client and went through them with a fine-toothed comb in order to flesh out if any calls were made on the dates in question. We found that the “contact” was our client calling back numbers he did not recognize because those are part of his duties as a business owner. The state’s witness was creating random numbers, calling our client, and when he called back she was insisting that he violated the DVPO. At trial, we methodically laid our defense, undermined the credibility of the state’s witness through cross-examination, and used the phone records we procured to fight for our client. The trial was in two phases on two separate dates, one for the first DVPO alleged violation and the other for the criminal charges that were related to the alleged violations.The hearing regarding the 50-B violation centered around whether the filing and service of the 50-B itself was proper. This was conducted in a special pre-trial session in which the authenticity of the underlying 50-B itself was challenged. We argued that the 50-B was modified in a way that was improper because our client was not present, nor was the client’s counsel at the time present for the hearing. We pulled a copy of the recording of the hearing to verify the absence of the client and counsel. The judge agreed with our argument and dismissed the DVPO violation.
The next trial took place at a later date, shortly after the first hearing. The cross-examination of the state’s witness was one of the most important parts of the criminal trial, as the state’s case hinged on the veracity of their witness. We attacked the witnesses’ credibility by first establishing that there was a pending custody case between the two parties in which the state’s witness had been held in contempt. Next, we questioned the witness on the various numbers used to call our client and the intent behind changing those numbers frequently. We then tied that intent to the modification to the DVPO in May of 2019 in which the change in the order was the reason for a later alleged violation. Also, the prosecution hinged on playing a voicemail allegedly sent from our client to the witness. Upon further scrutiny of the voicemail it was on a different date than alleged to the investigating officer and the number from which it came was never substantiated. The court agreed that the voicemail did not show contact beyond reasonable doubt.
In the end, a verdict of not guilty was rendered on all counts.
Forsyth County Man Wins 50-B Protective Order Defense
Charge: 50-B Domestic Violence Protective Order
Case Result: Order Not Granted
Our client was served with a Domestic Violence Protective order from his recently estranged wife. Several days after the couple parted way, the wife of our client filed a 50-B protective order in which she alleged a sexual assault weeks earlier between the spouses during a sexual encounter; as well as verbal and emotional harassment and financial harm. Our client retained the services of Greenwood Law, and we decided to use the text messages, receipts, and other paperwork from that time period to show that communication between the two parties showed no signs of imminent fear or harm on the part of the Plaintiff. We deposed the Plaintiff and used all three of the Plaintiff’s sworn statements to show inconsistencies in the Plaintiff’s accounts and challenge the credibility of the Plaintiff.
In a 50-B trial, the Plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that an act of domestic violence occurred and has resulted in fear of the Defendant. Over the course of a lengthy trial, we successfully challenged the Plaintiff’s motive and credibility, and showed the court that her actions were not the actions of a person living in abject fear as she claims in her complaint. Because of this compelling evidence and litigation, the Court ruled that it could not believe the Plaintiff was in fear of the Defendant because of the Plaintiff’s subsequent actions. The judge denied the Plaintiff’s complaint for a 50-B.
Civil No Contact Order (50-C) Dismissed Prior to Hearing
Attorney: Dylan W. Greenwood
Case: 50-C Civil No Contact Order
Case Result: Dismissed by Court Pursuant to 12(b)(6) Motion
Our client was a minor accused of harassing another minor at school. This is not the typical way a 50-C No Contact Order is used, or even meant to be used in the law. These No Contact Orders are important pieces of protection for victims of continued stalking, harassment, or non-consensual sexual contact. We do not recommend using 50-C No Contact Orders for things that happen at a school — unless they truly meet the standards for one.
50-C No Contact Orders, just like other matters in the law, require a party to prove certain individual elements. Each of these elements have to be proven by a certain level of proof. Certain circumstances in civil cases warrant a dismissal before a case even gets to trial. Experienced attorneys know how to present these motions before a Court. In this case, the plaintiff tried to bring a 50-C No Contact Order against our client, who by statute, was not old enough to be legally liable. The Court heard testimony by our minor client regarding her age and date of birth. We presented the law and why the case should be dismissed.
Attorney Dylan W. Greenwood successfully demonstrated that there was no way under the law that the plaintiff could present a case that conformed with the 50-C — No Contact Order statute. The Court dismissed the case.
Injury to Personal Property Dismissed with Proof of Solid Alibi
Attorney: Dylan W. Greenwood
Charge: Injury to Personal Property
Case Result: Voluntarily Dismissed
Our client was falsely accused of property damage to the vehicle of a jilted ex-spouse. Attorneys at Greenwood Law immediately began searching for ways to prove our client’s innocence. Our client was alleged to have been at a location more than 20 minutes away from his home, at a very specific time, while allegedly damaging this vehicle. Through home surveillance recordings, our client produced proof that he was in his home talking on a cell phone at that time. Unfortunately, the surveillance video was not timestamped — our first hiccup in this case. The attorneys at Greenwood Law were not done, however. We knew that if we could get the geolocation data from the cell phone used and show the specific cell phone tower that the client’s cell phone accessed, we could prove the alibi. We successfully subpoenaed this information from the cell company.
Without an experienced attorney, getting video surveillance and/or phone records admitted into evidence at trial can be tricky. Our attorneys know how to lay the proper foundations to show the Court the reliability of the evidence. In this case, the evidence was overwhelming. Our client was proven to be nowhere close to where the alleged events took place.
The district attorney dismissed the charges.
Forsyth County Case Results
Field Sobriety Tests Performed Incorrectly, No Proof of Driving Leads to Dismissal of DWI
Attorney: Dylan W. Greenwood
Charge: Driving While Impaired
Case Result: Dismissed by Court after Motion to Suppress Granted
Our client was alleged to have been arguing with an ex-significant other outside of a residence. Our client’s car was parked outside the residence, and when officers responded, they immediately began performing standardized field sobriety tests. No one could testify with their personal knowledge that our client drove the car. Using a Motion to Suppress, we argued that our client’s 4th Amendment protections from unreasonable search and seizure were violated. These motions prevent evidence obtained through unconstitutional means from being presented to a court. We filed our Motion to Suppress due to the police not having enough probable cause to arrest our client.
At the Suppression Hearing, we were able to shed light on, through cross-examination, all the shortcomings in the law enforcement officer’s investigation. That is why it is critical to retain an attorney who understands all the in’s and outs of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Field Sobriety Tests. Only by knowing all those details were we able to successfully discredit the ability of the Court to rely on them. The court granted our motion and dismissed all charges against the client. Additionally, we were able to credibly point out that no testimony was given for a key element of a DWI — proof of driving.
Weapon on School Property Charges Dismissed After Police Search on School Property for Off-Campus Crime
Attorney: Dylan W. Greenwood
Charge: Weapon on Education Property; Possession of Marijuana
Case Result: Dismissed by Court due to Motion to Suppress for Improper Search
Police were investigating a carjacking that happened off school property and they believed that students at the school may have been involved. The following day, police, along with school officials, brought the client to the office and immediately began searching his bookbag and patting him down. Police admitted that this search was done because of the events that happened the day before. Police found a knife and marijuana in the bookbag. School officials have broad powers to search students when it comes to ensuring school safety and a calm learning environment. Almost any search for those reasons by school officials would pass a court’s scrutiny and be allowed. However, these rules change when it is an officer conducting a search for an investigation of an event that occurred off school property. These searches are under the same scrutiny as any search done without a warrant—probable cause.
In all criminal cases, Greenwood Law looks to protect your constitutional rights immediately. This case was no different. This client’s constitutional rights were trampled by this unconstitutional, warrantless search, and we felt it was our duty to bring this to a court’s attention. When this occurs, we file what is called a Motion to Suppress. These motions prevent evidence obtained through unconstitutional means from being presented to a court. We filed our Motion to Suppress due to the police not obtaining a warrant for the search.
The court granted our motion and dismissed all charges against the client.
Man Released on Bond Reduction After Arrest for Extradition Order
Charge: Felony Extradition
Case Result: Motion to recall process and reduce bond granted, Extradition dismissed
A Winston-Salem man was driving on a normal afternoon when he was stopped by an officer for the routine traffic stop of failure to stop at a stop sign. For our client he was expected to receive a citation and be on his way. He was shocked to find out that he had an outstanding warrant for aggravated child molestation from Georgia; a charge that can carry up to life in prison. He was charged with felony extradition and was held at the Forsyth County Detention Center with no bond. Our first task in advocating for our client was to comb through the court file and the statute to ensure that all of the paperwork was filed properly. We pulled the file from the clerk’s office and wanted to compare the paperwork in the file to the required law. When we found discrepancies between the file we pulled from the clerk’s office and the required law, we planned to use those errors to aid our client.
We filed a motion to recall the process of extradition in district court. An extradition is a process in which one state agrees to hold a suspect who is “wanted” in another state in order to be picked up. Many times, this allows a holding state to detain a person with no bond, although the statute does allow for a bond in many circumstances. We challenged whether our client could be held without bond, when the fugitive affidavit itself was fatally flawed. In North Carolina, one of the authenticating documents which can be used to ensure there is in fact a pending charge in another state is the fugitive’s affidavit. This affidavit establishes the nature of the crime in the other state, the jurisdiction of that state, and most importantly that the defendant was in the jurisdiction of that state on the alleged date of offense. In this case, the alleged date of offense in the other state listed on the fugitive warrant was the same date in which the client was arrested in North Carolina. Thus, the state could not establish that the other state did in fact have jurisdiction over the defendant. The District Court Judge agreed with our argument and issued an unsecured bond which allowed our client to be released from custody that day.
Middle District of North Carolina Case Results
Mandatory Minimum Sentence Given for Federal Child Pornography Charges
Attorney: Dylan W. Greenwood
Charge: Sexual Exploitation of a Minor
Case Result: Plead Guilty; Sentenced to Minimum of Five (5) Years
Law enforcement officers from the State Bureau of Investigation and Homeland Security followed activity from our client that they had downloaded marked files. Based on this information they obtained a search warrant. While serving the warrant, law enforcement officers seized multiple computers and hard drives.
Federal sentencing guidelines for sexual exploitation of a minor (a.k.a child pornography) are very steep. The base offense level is 22 and additional points are added for certain individual characteristics of the criminal offense. Furthermore, defendants charged with certain sexual exploitation of minor charges in Federal court are faced with steep mandatory minimum sentences, starting at (5) years in federal prison. However, the additional points added on typically propel an accused defendant’s recommended sentence to be well beyond the mandatory minimum. That is why it is important for an attorney to be involved with your case as early as possible. Sometimes an attorney can work with authorities to help steer a case away from Federal Court and these mandatory minimums. In this case, however, it was unavoidable. Federal authorities were involved and keeping it that way from the start.
At the Sentencing Hearing, we were able to successfully argue for a downward departure to the mandatory minimum of five (5) years. In preparation, we wrote a robust sentencing memorandum to the Court and argued the §3553(a) factors. §3553(a) factors are the things a federal sentencing court considers about the accused defendant in determining a final sentence. It is important to have an attorney, who not only understands these facts, but knows how to apply them to your case for presentation to a court.