State v. SantifortÂ, 809 S.E.2d 213

Background

On March 3, 2016, while employed as a Kenly police officer, Jesse Santifort deployed a Taser during a pursuit; the pursued driver later died and Santifort was later indicted for involuntary manslaughter.
Before Santifort was indicted, the State filed two ex parte motions (March 7 and June 13, 2016) seeking his personnel files from four police departments and his Basic Law Enforcement Training records; both motions lacked affidavits and were undocketed.
Superior Court Judges Stephens and Lock entered orders compelling disclosure of those records prior to any criminal or civil action or any properly docketed special proceeding.
After indictment, Santifort moved to intervene (Rule 24) and sought relief under Rule 60(b)(4) to vacate the prior ex parte orders as void; Judge Pittman denied both motions and treated the prior orders as part of the criminal file.
The Court of Appeals held it had jurisdiction by treating Judge Pittman’s order as a final judgment in a special proceeding and, exercising discretion, reviewed the antecedent ex parte orders via certiorari.
The Court of Appeals reversed Judge Pittman’s denials: it found the ex parte orders void ab initio because the State failed to present affidavits or initiate/docket a special proceeding, and therefore Santifort was entitled to vacatur and to have been allowed to intervene.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over Santifort’s appeal	State: appeal is interlocutory in a criminal case and not appealable	Santifort: Judge Pittman’s order was a final judgment in a special proceeding and appealable; alternatively, treat brief as certiorari to review antecedent orders	Court of Appeals exercised jurisdiction, treated Pittman’s order as final in a special proceeding and used certiorari to review earlier ex parte orders
Whether Santifort could intervene under Rule 24(a)(2) in the prior ex parte proceedings	State: intervention moot because documents were incorporated in criminal file	Santifort: he had a personal interest, inadequate representation, and practical impairment because proceedings were ex parte and undocketed	Court: intervention denial reversed — motions to intervene were not moot and should have been allowed to proceed
Whether the ex parte orders compelling personnel and educational records were valid	State: judges had jurisdiction and authority under inherent power and/or §160A-168 to order disclosure	Santifort: orders were void because no affidavits/evidence were presented and no special proceeding was initiated or docketed	Court: orders were void ab initio for lack of jurisdictional invocation (no affidavits, no docketed special proceeding); vacatur required
Whether Rule 60(b)(4) relief was available to vacate other judges’ orders	State: one superior court judge cannot overrule another; Rule 60 not available to attack those orders here	Santifort: Rule 60(b)(4) permits relief where a judgment/order is void for lack of jurisdiction	Court: Rule 60(b)(4) applies to void judgments; because the prior orders were void, Trial Judge Pittman erred in denying Rule 60 relief; reversal warranted

Key Cases Cited

In re Superior Court Order, 315 N.C. 378 (N.C. 1986) (ex parte production orders require affidavits or similar evidence to show reasonable grounds to suspect a crime and relevance of records)
State v. Brooks, 143 N.C. App. 601 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001) (ex parte personnel-file petitions must be sworn and matters docketed as special proceedings; failure renders orders erroneous)
Boseman v. Jarrell, 364 N.C. 537 (N.C. 2010) (an order is void where subject-matter jurisdiction was never invoked)
Ottway Burton, P.A. v. Blanton, 107 N.C. App. 615 (N.C. Ct. App. 1992) (a judgment is void only when the issuing court lacked jurisdiction or authority)
Leyshon, 211 N.C. App. 511 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011) (appeals lie from final judgments in civil actions or special proceedings)
Calloway v. Ford Motor Co., 281 N.C. 496 (N.C. 1972) (one superior court judge cannot ordinarily correct another judge’s legal errors)