Court of Appeals in State v. Townsend Beefs Up Prejudice Required for Relief under Knoll

linkedin
Share on Google+
Share on Reddit
Share on Tumblr

[Author's note:  State v. Townsend was withdrawn and replaced by a subsequent opinion, available here.  The portion of the opinion discussed below was unchanged by the subsequent opinion.]

No one gets relief any more under State v. Knoll—at least not from the court of appeals.  State v. Townsend, decided today, is the latest in a series of post-Knoll cases in which the defendant failed to establish that he was prejudiced by a magistrate’s alleged statutory violations in setting conditions of pre-trial release, and, thus, failed to establish a basis for dismissal of the charges.

Facts. The defendant in Townsend was arrested at a DWI checkpoint in Charlotte around 11:30 p.m. Forty-five minutes later, he submitted to breath testing in the Breath Alcohol Testing vehicle located at the scene, registering a 0.10 on his first test and a 0.09 on his second. The defendant called his wife to tell her he had been arrested. He told her that he or someone would call her later to come pick him up.  The arresting officer then took the defendant to the Mecklenburg County Jail, where he was admitted at 12:56 a.m.

The record of events gets a bit more confusing from here.  While the opinion states that the defendant appeared before a magistrate at 2:54 a.m. (some two hours after arriving at the jail), it also adopts the trial court’s finding that the defendant signed an implied consent offense notice (form AOC-CR-271) in front of the magistrate at 2:34 a.m., listing his wife’s name and phone number. The implied consent notice form contains a certification from the magistrate that an initial appearance has been held, so it is odd that the form apparently was signed before the initial appearance.

In any event, the magistrate imposed a secured bond—of sorts. The conditions of release form stated that the defendant was subject to a $1,000 secured bond, but also stated that the bond “may be unsecured to sober responsible adult with ID.”  The court of appeals called this an “option bond,” as good a label as any since no such condition is defined in or authorized by statute.

A jail official called the defendant’s wife, who came to the jail.  The defendant was released to the custody of his wife at 4:45 a.m., more than five hours after he was arrested and about four hours after he arrived at the jail.

Procedural History.  The defendant moved to dismiss the charges pursuant to State v. Knoll, 322 N.C. 535 (1988), arguing that he was denied the right to communicate with counsel and friends and that this denial resulted in substantial prejudice.  The defendant specifically complained that the magistrate ordered him held under a $1,000 secured bond without justification, prior to meeting with him, and without making written findings as to why that condition was necessary. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion, and the court of appeals affirmed.

Holding. Though conceding that the magistrate “may have committed a technical statutory violation,” by not making written findings as to its reason for imposing a secured bond, the court of appeals held that the defendant failed to demonstrate how he was prejudiced by that violation.  The court noted that the defendant was not in fact required to post a secured bond.  Instead, he was released on an unsecured bond to his wife’s custody.  Ergo, said the court, he cannot show prejudice.  Moreover, the court said that the defendant had several opportunities to call counsel and friends to observe him and help him to obtain an independent chemical analysis, but failed to do so.  Thus, he was not “denied his rights pursuant to Knoll.”

Food for Thought.  Probably because I regularly teach magistrates about the procedures they must follow in setting conditions of release in impaired driving cases, my reaction to the facts is less sanguine than the court of appeals. For starters, “option bonds” are not a statutory option. Instead, G.S. 15A-534 requires that a magistrate impose at least one of the following conditions of release.

  1. Release the defendant on his written promise to appear.
  2. Release the defendant upon his execution of an unsecured appearance bond in an amount specified.
  3. Place the defendant in the custody of a designated person or organization agreeing to supervise him.
  4. Require the execution of a secured appearance bond in a specified amount.
  5. House arrest with electronic monitoring.

A magistrate must impose condition (1), (2), or (3) above unless he or she determines that such release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required, will pose a danger of injury to any person, or is likely to result in destruction of evidence, subornation of perjury, or intimidation of potential witnesses. Upon making the determination, the magistrate must then require a secured bond instead of condition (1), (2), or (3), and must record the reasons for so doing in writing to the extent provided in the policies or requirements issued by the senior resident superior court judge.

Furthermore, the “option bond” imposed in Townsend essentially functioned as an impaired driving hold. It was not, however, accompanied by findings to support such a hold. One could infer that the magistrate imposed the bond to prevent the defendant from gaining immediate release–unless the defendant was released to the custody of a sober, responsible adult. If, however, the magistrate found clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was impaired to the extent he was a danger, the appropriate action would have been to impose an impaired driving hold pursuant to G.S. 15A-534.2 rather than an optional bond. Impaired driving holds are properly recorded on form AOC-CR-270, which contains a place for magistrates to record their findings.

It isn’t clear to me whether there was evidence in Townsend to support such a hold. The defendant’s alcohol concentration was near the per se level, and he was stopped at a checkpoint. Perhaps his alcohol concentration when combined with the signs of intoxication that the officer observed during the field sobriety tests were sufficient to render him dangerous more than three hours after his arrest, but I am somewhat doubtful.

Had the magistrate imposed a written promise or an unsecured bond at the initial appearance, the Townsend defendant would have been released nearly two hours earlier, a difference that may not have affected his ability to gather evidence in any meaningful way. In another case, however, the difference could be significant. A defendant might be held for several hours on an “option bond” when there is no evidence that she is impaired to the extent she is a danger. Conversely, a highly impaired defendant could post bond and gain release without supervision.

Why? I continue to be surprised by the perseverance and prevalence of option bonds. Perhaps they are used to avoid the additional paperwork associated with an impaired driving hold. Perhaps magistrates have decided that statutory procedures must be skirted to protect the public.  Or perhaps old habits just die hard. In any event, State v. Townsend again emphasizes that a defendant must prove far more than a misstep by a magistrate to be entitled to dismissal of impaired driving charges under Knoll.

9 comments on “Court of Appeals in State v. Townsend Beefs Up Prejudice Required for Relief under Knoll

  1. I think it’s important to emphasize the State had the option of proceeding under the per se prong in this case as opposed to merely the appreciable impairment prong. In my opinion, there would have been a different result if the State only had the option of proceeding under the appreciable impairment prong. As you’ve indicated in this post, I don’t think the State would have been able to justify what was effectively a DWI detention hold and, absent an alcohol concentration, prejudice would have been presumed.

  2. So does Townsend mean that a magistrate doesn’t need to make findings when imposing a secured bond on a DWI arrest or just not when it’s an “option bond”?

  3. “[B]y a magistrate’s alleged statutory violations”? If he didn’t specify findings, is it really “alleged statutory violations”?

    By imposing #3 or #4, doesn’t the magistrate allow for #3 which he or she is entitled to do? Making #4 extraneous?

    My question is… How does a defendant actually show prejudice? Do I have to have a phlebotomist with a test kit ready at the jail?

    Perhaps there is a business opportunity for someone to have a rolling intoxilyzer machine (“instrument”) to do an independent test outside of the jail.

    • Recently during a Knoll hearing the magistrate admitted that he did not follow the statutory procedures for imposing a secured bond yet imposed the secured bond anyway. Client was held about 12 hours in custody. Client testified that he would have gone to the hospital for a blood test had he been released within a few hours of arrest rather than half a day later. Client was prejudiced by being unlawfully prevented from obtaining a relevant, independent blood test. The ADA argued that had the magistrate followed the statutory procedure it is possible that the magistrate could have concluded that the secured bond was justified. There was no actual justification proposed. Judge left courtroom for 30 or 40 minutes (conferring with another judge, perhaps), then returned to deny the motion to dismiss.

      • And no one was surprised.

  4. I am in the process of drafting a new bond policy for our district. Should I prohibit “option” bonds?

    Also, the opinion holds that the magistrate erred when he did not make findings, but the opinion does not reference the bond policy that would make that mandatory. “Upon making the determination, the magistrate must then require a secured bond instead of condition (1), (2), or (3), and must record the reasons for so doing in writing to the extent provided in the policies or requirements issued by the senior resident superior court judge.” Does this statute require findings, and the “extent” of the findings is to be according to local policy? Or, are findings required only if the local policy says so?

  5. Shea, I believe magistrates are using the “option” bond to comply with the statutory component that states in part, “If condition (3) is imposed, however, the defendant may elect to execute an appearance bond under subdivision (4).” By placing the option on the release order, the magistrate has attempted to make sure that the defendant can exercise that option.

    I’m a former magistrate, but I must say that I do not recall the School of Government instructing us to make findings on our release orders when determining a bond. We were always instructed simply to follow our judges’ policies. I am disheartened to see that you feel magistrates are too lazy or intentionally break the law to protect the public. Some responsibility lies with the State in funding and educating magistrates and the judges who supervise them. Just my two cents as an outsider now looking in.

  6. State v. Townsend has been withdrawn.

  7. Lexis does not show that State v. Townsend is withdrawn yet. Do you anticipate a new decision or a new hearing en banc?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


two + = 11

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>