A unanimous three-judge panel of the N.C. Court of Appeals says Davidson College’s religious ties should prevent its college police from making a DWI arrest. That ruling throws out a 2006 DWI case involving a Davidson College officer.

The defendant had offered a constitutional argument that Davidson’s status as a religious institution should prevent it from having any role in carrying out state law enforcement functions. While the appellate judges agreed that court precedent points in that direction, they invited the N.C. Supreme Court to take another look at the issue:

Davidson College is primarily an educational institution with well-established principles of academic freedom and religious tolerance. … As set forth in its Statement of Purpose, Davidson College?s mission is not religious indoctrination but rather to ?assist students in developing humane instincts and disciplined and creative minds for lives of leadership and service[.]? We thus acknowledge the important distinction between an institution with religious influence or affiliation and one that is
pervasively sectarian. 

Nonetheless, we further recognize that our unanimous decision will not confer on Davidson College an appeal as a matter of right to our Supreme Court.  Accordingly, should Davidson College seek discretionary review of this decision by our Supreme Court, we urge our Supreme Court to grant such review, which will be without the constraints placed upon this Panel by [precedent cases] Pendleton and Jordan.

Among the rest of the opinions posted this morning from the N.C. Court of Appeals:

  • A split 2-1 panel ruled against the N.C. Division of Motor Vehicles in a 2007 dispute with a Florida driver who challenged the DMV’s ability to revoke his North Carolina driving privileges after a DWI arrest.
  • A unanimous three-judge panel reversed a lower court and supported Charlotte and its Zoning Board of Adjustment in a dispute over the height of a new house built in the Queen City.
  • A unanimous three-judge panel affirmed a lower-court ruling in favor of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority in a dispute over court costs tied to out-of-state expert witnesses.