Loading
Donate

North Carolina Arrests

State Arrest Report PDF Marijuana Arrests By County 1995 - 1997

1995

1996

1997

1995 to 1997

NAME

TL

AQ



RATE


TL


AQ


RATE


TL


AQ


RATE


RANK


CHANGE


RANK
North Carolina 15,554 0.77 216.18 18,441 0.81 251.89 23,008 0.93 309.87 - 43.34% -
Alamance 187 0.46 162.94 190 0.58 162.67 298 0.67 251.63 35 54.43% 53
Alexander 56 0.90 186.95 71 1.06 232.89 79 1.13 255.58 34 36.71% 61
Alleghany 13 1.07 131.22 51 3.77 505.85 39 2.34 381.53 21 190.76% 10
Anson 8 0.08 32.59 11 0.10 44.04 30 0.26 118.46 73 263.47% 7
Ashe 5 0.16 21.25 12 0.39 50.10 13 0.42 53.53 95 151.96% 17
Avery 26 0.79 167.89 43 1.08 272.84 35 0.95 219.06 45 30.48% 68
Beaufort 41 0.62 91.84 46 0.59 101.24 56 0.69 121.56 72 32.37% 64
Bertie 1 0.02 4.76 6 0.10 28.07 13 0.21 59.99 92 1159.87% 2
Bladen 41 0.40 135.91 100 0.74 325.72 166 1.08 533.30 10 292.39% 4
Brunswick 41 0.29 69.04 21 0.14 34.75 38 0.27 62.01 91 -10.17% 90
Buncombe 477 0.84 252.12 519 0.86 269.52 616 0.93 315.51 26 25.14% 71
Burke 143 0.72 179.52 137 0.66 168.99 144 0.68 175.18 60 -2.41% 85
Cabarrus 418 1.04 382.14 466 0.96 418.58 537 1.02 475.73 13 24.49% 72
Caldwell 119 0.77 159.27 131 0.68 172.27 272 1.23 352.79 23 121.51% 23
Camden 3 0.50 46.31 14 1.96 212.35 9 1.00 134.65 69 190.75% 11
Carteret 103 0.58 179.41 132 0.68 225.92 164 0.77 276.85 29 54.32% 54
Caswell 26 0.51 121.60 41 0.73 188.41 68 1.05 308.21 27 153.45% 16
Catawba 162 0.57 127.71 246 0.84 190.55 309 0.92 236.07 41 84.85% 36
Chatham 51 0.62 120.05 57 0.63 131.83 55 0.57 125.46 70 4.51% 81
Cherokee 25 0.80 116.49 27 0.70 123.62 22 0.47 99.35 78 -14.71% 92
Chowan 4 0.13 28.28 8 0.22 55.57 29 0.70 198.68 54 602.65% 3
Clay 11 1.14 141.79 2 0.21 25.33 5 0.60 62.46 90 -55.95% 99
Cleveland 106 0.43 117.68 94 0.33 102.54 91 0.30 97.91 79 -16.80% 93
Columbus 21 0.13 40.48 43 0.23 81.44 83 0.44 155.05 66 283.05% 6
Craven 211 0.70 249.30 296 0.76 343.63 295 0.84 337.78 25 35.49% 62
Cumberland 353 0.72 121.13 447 0.90 150.70 565 0.88 187.87 56 55.10% 52
Currituck 48 1.10 298.88 93 2.12 568.98 109 2.34 657.74 5 120.07% 24
Dare 173 1.67 677.29 128 1.17 492.44 274 1.89 1039.77 1 53.52% 55
Davidson 374 1.01 275.75 419 1.01 303.54 617 1.53 440.85 16 59.87% 49
Davie 2 0.08 6.67 47 1.89 154.12 38 1.41 122.91 71 1741.31% 1
Duplin 26 0.13 61.67 67 0.29 156.17 90 0.35 206.92 50 235.50% 8
Durham 231 0.42 118.06 194 0.35 97.41 382 0.62 189.18 55 60.25% 48
Edgecombe 58 0.40 163.68 59 0.36 163.61 154 0.80 418.11 19 155.44% 15
Forsyth 1,079 1.05 381.54 1,123 1.01 390.16 1,502 1.20 514.67 12 34.89% 63
Franklin 39 0.82 94.91 28 0.56 66.95 44 0.76 103.77 77 9.34% 79
Gaston 1,023 1.85 558.37 1,102 1.73 591.00 1,064 1.57 562.79 8 0.79% 84
Gates 4 0.25 40.43 17 1.07 168.85 7 0.42 68.57 89 69.60% 41
Graham 9 0.36 116.81 15 0.52 191.30 19 1.07 238.99 39 104.61% 29
Granville 41 0.37 99.90 57 0.47 136.47 40 0.37 94.46 81 -5.45% 89
Greene 1 0.03 5.99 1 0.03 5.88 4 0.11 23.22 100 287.63% 5
Guilford 2,123 0.98 564.80 2,462 1.03 643.55 2,702 1.07 696.58 3 23.33% 74
Halifax 74 0.32 127.35 79 0.30 133.59 101 0.37 168.45 61 32.28% 65
Harnett 216 1.13 287.59 269 1.16 351.92 410 1.63 529.03 11 83.95% 37
Haywood 102 0.78 204.29 73 0.53 143.66 60 0.45 116.46 74 -42.99% 98
Henderson 84 0.46 109.96 123 0.62 158.21 196 0.86 248.65 36 126.12% 22
Hertford 12 0.16 51.98 36 0.46 153.24 23 0.27 96.57 80 85.77% 35
Hoke 14 0.15 51.16 27 0.28 96.94 26 0.28 92.07 82 79.97% 38
Hyde 7 0.86 129.20 8 1.02 145.09 12 1.57 214.67 47 66.15% 43
Iredell 293 1.02 286.19 456 1.18 437.62 583 1.42 551.83 9 92.82% 33
Jackson 34 1.10 117.93 64 1.63 218.11 73 1.56 245.37 37 108.07% 27
Johnston 131 0.58 141.60 178 0.73 189.05 216 0.78 226.27 43 59.79% 50
Jones 6 0.51 60.78 9 0.52 89.59 6 0.46 58.91 93 -3.07% 86
Lee 122 0.50 267.43 198 0.82 426.46 300 1.42 637.29 6 138.30% 18
Lenoir 111 0.53 187.60 158 0.70 262.38 214 0.84 350.51 24 86.84% 34
Lincoln 57 0.69 100.79 63 0.63 109.45 52 0.54 89.10 83 -11.60% 91
Macon 19 0.66 73.48 21 0.62 79.79 43 1.10 161.15 63 119.32% 25
Madison 26 0.84 144.92 26 0.76 142.40 34 0.92 183.66 58 26.74% 69
Martin 17 0.29 63.35 14 0.23 51.27 23 0.35 83.07 87 31.12% 66
McDowell 51 0.74 135.24 69 0.77 179.79 33 0.31 84.80 85 -37.29% 95
Mecklenburg 1,302 0.89 226.98 1,572 1.02 269.14 1,673 1.04 282.40 28 24.42% 73
Mitchell 19 0.43 128.85 25 0.52 166.60 32 0.73 210.35 48 63.25% 45
Montgomery 30 0.34 126.61 35 0.37 145.15 37 0.44 151.35 67 19.54% 76
Moore 52 0.58 78.15 124 1.00 183.11 164 1.20 238.87 40 205.67% 9
Nash 305 0.79 284.12 291 0.61 266.35 397 0.77 359.28 22 26.46% 70
New Hanover 799 1.37 581.34 872 1.61 623.37 989 1.60 697.31 2 19.95% 75
Northampton 7 0.14 33.30 14 0.27 65.45 12 0.21 55.34 94 66.20% 42
Onslow 227 1.25 151.07 314 1.69 205.33 421 2.18 271.52 31 79.73% 39
Orange 67 0.29 62.71 54 0.21 49.66 41 0.13 37.19 98 -40.70% 97
Pamlico NR - - 2 0.07 16.18 11 0.37 87.76 84 - -
Pasquotank 68 0.62 199.20 85 0.77 244.65 200 1.31 567.75 7 185.02% 12
Pender 46 0.57 134.60 78 0.76 224.26 74 0.64 209.85 49 55.91% 51
Perquimans 4 0.15 36.69 13 0.43 117.19 6 0.30 53.35 96 45.40% 59
Person 14 0.13 43.42 4 0.03 12.19 9 0.07 27.05 99 -37.70% 96
Pitt 119 0.29 100.07 108 0.22 89.24 197 0.39 160.54 64 60.43% 47
Polk 10 0.50 63.48 5 0.21 31.19 8 0.29 49.22 97 -22.47% 94
Randolph 242 0.88 210.87 199 0.67 170.37 242 0.74 204.35 53 -3.09% 87
Richmond 36 0.26 78.01 49 0.32 104.33 88 0.53 184.80 57 136.90% 19
Robeson 300 0.69 266.38 281 0.71 245.15 319 0.69 274.49 30 3.05% 82
Rockingham 105 0.43 117.90 155 0.54 171.01 190 0.66 206.75 51 75.36% 40
Rowan 122 0.40 102.33 165 0.48 135.98 207 0.60 168.26 62 64.43% 44
Rutherford 198 1.30 330.40 216 1.04 354.16 291 1.23 470.59 15 42.43% 60
Sampson 207 1.30 407.14 182 1.03 351.72 220 1.22 419.34 18 3.00% 83
Scotland 33 0.27 92.86 29 0.24 80.19 50 0.41 136.36 68 46.83% 58
Stanly 44 0.38 80.27 65 0.54 120.71 103 0.63 182.10 59 126.86% 21
Stokes 83 1.17 204.53 85 0.96 205.81 198 1.94 472.85 14 131.18% 20
Surry 118 0.79 180.10 125 0.72 187.46 180 1.00 266.24 32 47.83% 57
Swain 25 0.75 209.54 79 2.00 650.63 53 1.18 430.58 17 105.49% 28
Transylvania 23 0.44 83.84 54 0.81 193.40 31 0.40 109.51 75 30.62% 67
Tyrrell 10 0.83 252.21 11 1.12 272.61 28 2.69 684.43 4 171.38% 14
Union 117 0.46 120.79 170 0.60 172.44 258 0.84 258.11 33 113.70% 26
Vance 95 0.55 230.83 81 0.44 193.38 94 0.46 221.33 44 -4.11% 88
Wake 1,005 0.95 199.82 1,364 0.99 266.46 2,009 1.26 387.07 20 93.71% 32
Warren 12 0.35 66.70 17 0.38 92.84 13 0.32 70.03 88 5.00% 80
Washington 8 0.36 55.15 19 0.68 128.70 16 0.57 106.89 76 93.83% 31
Watauga 29 0.45 72.87 73 0.70 180.24 84 0.86 204.56 52 180.71% 13
Wayne 148 0.53 133.10 172 0.53 151.98 182 0.56 158.61 65 19.17% 77
Wilkes 90 0.54 145.40 116 0.59 184.13 150 0.78 234.83 42 61.51% 46
Wilson 127 0.59 188.05 161 0.50 234.24 152 0.38 218.12 46 15.99% 78
Yadkin 40 0.76 121.83 71 1.15 212.49 83 1.31 245.01 38 101.11% 30
Yancey 9 0.62 55.22 12 0.55 72.35 14 0.41 83.25 86 50.76% 56

Notes:

NR:None Reported.

TL: Total Marijuana Arrests Reported.

AQ: Arrest Quotient. This indicator compares local marijuana arrests to national marijuana arrests in proportion to all arrests. The AQ is produced through dividing the local percentage of marijuana arrests by the national percentage. A value of 1.0 indicates that local marijuana arrests are the same percentage of all arrests as the are nationally. A value of 2.0 indicates that local marijuana arrests are twice the percentage of local arrests as they are nationally. AQ values less than 1.0 indicate that local marijuana arrests are less of a percentage of all local arrests than the national standard. A value of .5 indicates that local marijuana arrests are one half the percentage they represent of all national arrests.

RATE: Marijuana arrest rate per 100,000 population.

CHANGE: Percent change in arrest rate from 1995 to 1997.

Citation: Gettman, Jon B. (2000) "US Marijuana Arrests. Part One – County Level Data" Washington, D.C.: National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

Original Data Source: Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data [United States]: County-Level Detailed Arrest And Offense Data, [Computer files]. ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor], 1999.