State Prosecutor Seeking Order for Arrest for Failure to Appear When Defendant is Detained by ICE
Adopted: July 19, 2013
Opinion rules that a state prosecutor does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct by asking the court to enter an order for arrest when a defendant detained by ICE fails to appear in court on the defendant’s scheduled court date.
Inquiry #1:
A defendant is an undocumented alien who is arrested for a crime. He is given a secured bond by the magistrate, placed in custody in the jail, and served with a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer. The defendant hires a bondsman to pay the secured bond and the bondsman does so. ICE comes to the jail and takes the defendant into custody, transporting him to a federal holding facility. The defendant’s court-appointed lawyer brings verification of the defendant’s detention by ICE to the prosecutor handling the case. Later, the defendant’s lawyer appears in court on the defendant’s court date and explains to the court that the defendant is in the custody of ICE. The defense lawyer asks the state to have the defendant brought to trial, enter a voluntary dismissal, or dismiss the case with leave pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.§15A-932.
The prosecutor asks the judge to call the defendant for failure to appear and to issue an order for his arrest pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.§15A-305(b)(2) which provides that “[a]n order for arrest may be issued when:...[a] defendant who has been arrested and released from custody pursuant to Article 26 of this Chapter, Bail, fails to appear as required.”
The court enters a forfeiture of the bond pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.§15A-544.3(a), which provides that when a defendant who was released upon execution of a bail bond fails to appear before the court as required, the court shall enter a forfeiture for the amount of the bail bond in favor of the state and against the defendant and the surety on the bail bond. Nevertheless, N.C. Gen. Stat.§15A-544.3(b)(9) provides that a forfeiture of a bail bond will be set aside if, on or before the final judgment date, “satisfactory evidence is presented to the court” that one of a number of listed “events” has occurred. That list includes the following “event” at subparagraph (vii):
the defendant was incarcerated in a local, state, or federal detention center, jail, or prison located anywhere within the borders of the United States at the time of the failure to appear, and the district attorney for the county in which the charges are pending was notified of the defendant's incarceration while the defendant was still incarcerated and the defendant remains incarcerated for a period of 10 days following the district attorney's receipt of notice, as evidenced by a copy of the written notice served on the district attorney via hand delivery or certified mail and written documentation of date upon which the defendant was released from incarceration, if the defendant was released prior to the time the motion to set aside was filed.
N.C. Gen. Stat.§15A-544.3(b)(9); accord N.C. Gen. Stat.§15A-544.5(b)(7).
If ICE decides to release the defendant from custody and there is an outstanding order for his arrest from a North Carolina court, ICE will detain the defendant until he can be released to the custody of the State.1 See N.C. Gen. Stat.§15A-761.
Is the prosecutor’s conduct a violation of Rule 3.8 or any other Rule of Professional Conduct?
Opinion #1:
No. Rule 3.8, on the special responsibilities of a prosecutor, prohibits a prosecutor from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause. The comment to the rule, moreover, emphasizes the prosecutor’s duty to seek justice. However, there is no legal requirement that a defendant’s failure to appear in court be willful. In the instant inquiry, the legal requirements for requesting an order of arrest were satisfied and there was a procedural reason for seeking the order of arrest. Therefore, although the prosecutor knows that the defendant’s failure to appear is not willful, the prosecutor’s exercise of his professional discretion within the requirements of the law does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Inquiry #2:
Did the judge violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or the Code of Judicial Conduct by issuing the order for arrest and forfeiting the bond?
Opinion #2:
Opining on the professional conduct of judicial officers is outside the purview of the Ethics Committee. Therefore, no opinion will be offered in response to this question.