WILMINGTON — Earlier this month, a Wilmington police officer arrested a drunk, armed suspect with a recent felony gun conviction and both state and federal probation orders. Under state law, the suspect shouldn’t have received bond — but he did, and then skipped his court date and vanished.
How did this happen?
The issue comes down to information — or, rather, the inability of police officers and magistrates to access that information, namely state and federal criminal records, in a timely manner.
In this case, that lack of information undid the hard work of a police officer who risked his life to make an arrest. And, while the Wilmington Police Department was quick to celebrate the officer’s successful resolution of the dangerous situation, it had much less to say about the blindspots that let the suspect walk away less than twelve hours later.
Meanwhile, the court system also plays a role in the problem — but, currently, there are no plans to provide better information access to the magistrates who make decisions about conditions of release when a suspect is first arrested.
This is part of a larger conversation about the cash bail system. Advocates for change argue that the system essentially punishes non-violent offenders, in particular those facing low-level drug possession charges, for being poor. But, at the same time, many also acknowledge the frustration of seeing repeat offenders — especially violent criminals — being released, only to offend again.
A dangerous arrest
When Taquan Perlie James drove drunk into a church on the evening of Saturday, August 1, he had an open bottle of liquor, crack cocaine, and a firearm in the car. He also had a history of felony convictions, including a 2017 federal conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon and drug distribution — a conviction for which he was on 10-year federal probation, in addition to state probation for drug charges.
What followed was a nightmare scenario: a single police officer attempting to arrest an armed, intoxicated suspect while an angry crowd formed. The potential for injury or death — for the suspect, the officer, or a bystander — was considerable.
Related: Wilmington police highlight resolution to ‘dangerous’ arrest, suspect out on bond the next day
During the struggle, James turned his back on the officer and pulled a firearm from his waistband — an act that, in countless other situations, resulted in the use of lethal force by officers, whether justified or not. James, however, was apparently trying to dispose of the firearm, not discharge it, and managed to toss it into another vehicle on the scene.
The officer tasered James, recovered the firearm, and made an arrest. The crowd dispersed. No one was badly injured.
James was taken into custody — but less than 12 hours later, he would be out, failing to appear in court the following day. Nearly two weeks later, he remains at large.
Conditions of release
When a suspect is arrested, a law enforcement officer brings that person in front of a magistrate, a judge who determines whether there is probable cause for the charges and then assigns ‘conditions of release’ — usually, a bond of some sort. These conditions are temporary and are often modified during a suspect’s ‘first appearance,’ usually scheduled in District Court on the next available business day.
When the arresting officer brought James in front of a magistrate on the evening of August 1, James was given a $175,000 secured bond. Using a bonding company, James was able to pay that bond, and was released around 6 a.m. on the morning of Sunday, August 2, with the order to appear in court the following afternoon.
However, under state law, the default decision should have been to deny James’ bond. Under general statute §15A-533(f)2, for a suspect charged with a gun crime who is on pre-trial release for a gun-related felony, or who has a conviction for a gun-related felony with in the last five years, there is a “rebuttable presumption that no condition of release will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community.” That would include James’ 2017 federal conviction.
This default is ‘rebuttable,’ meaning James could have contested a decision to deny his bond. That said, given that James was also on both state and federal probation — which he had violated, a crime in and of itself — it would be a tough hill to climb.
However, the state law only works if the arresting officer or the magistrate is aware of the relevant criminal history. For James’ arrest, it seems that wasn’t the case. And it’s probably not an isolated incident.
Access to records
According to Chief District Court Judge J.H. Corpening, II — who oversees the magistrate program in New Hanover and Pender counties — magistrates don’t have access to federal criminal records, and can’t see conviction and probation information for federal cases like James’. Corpening said he wasn’t aware of any way to provide this information to magistrates.
Corpening also said magistrates only have limited access to North Carolina state criminal histories (although information like past convictions, incarcerations, parole and probations, and upcoming court dates are available to the public online).
That means while magistrates are likely aware of the state law that aims to deny bond for repeat gun-crime offenders, they can’t apply the law if they can’t see a federal case or criminal history.
Law enforcement officers face a similar issue. While arresting officers have the opportunity to provide information that impacts conditions of release to magistrates, they have limited access to criminal records.
WPD Captain Thomas Tilmon declined to answer specific questions about what access officers had to these records, or whether the department had ever requested that magistrates be given improved access to criminal records. Tilmon directed questions to the court system instead.
The department was able to confirm that officers do not have direct access to federal criminal records. As noted in the WPD release concerning James’ arrest, the department only discovered that James was on federal probation the following day — after James had already made bail and disappeared. This problem is likely exacerbated on the weekends, when statistically more gun-related crimes occur.
What this all means, ironically, is that more serious offenders might slip through the cracks more often. As District Attorney Ben David has noted, a satellite office for federal prosecutors has been set up in New Hanover County for the last two years. According to David, local prosecutors have pushed to have serious offenders tried in federal court, which can impose tougher sentences than those allowed under North Carolina law.
Now what?
It’s unclear what’s next for the James case. The New Hanover County court system has issued an order for arrest, but almost two weeks later, he’s still not in custody.
The Wilmington-region federal probation office, which is managed by the U.S. Courts, confirmed it was aware of James but that federal law enforcement had not arrested him (which is sometimes the case with suspects who are arrested on local charges that violate federal parole).
The District Attorney’s office did not comment on whether prosecutors would have asked to revoke James’ bond had he appeared in court as order on the Monday after his arrest. According to a spokesperson, “[t]he District Attorney’s Office will be prepared to address James’ bond on his pending cases in court at the time of his first appearance when he comes back into custody.”
Send comments and tips to Benjamin Schachtman at ben@localdailymedia.com, @pcdben on Twitter, and (910) 538-2001.
