Man accused of assaulting DC daycare workers arrested again nearby

Despite her efforts to help, she said then, Dunkley continued to slip through the cracks of the city's mental health system, accused of harassing and assaulting people and engaging in lewd acts without getting a single conviction. Charged only with minor offenses, he was released again last month in a familiar pattern — from handcuffs to treatment at a city-run or contracted mental health facility until his release. This time, police say, he returned to the old neighborhood where he was accused of the assault.

When a dog walker spotted him in late May near the daycare on Florida Avenue NW, everyone went “back into panic mode,” said La Shada Ham-Campbell, the founder of Petit Scholars. Police arrested Dunkley for violating an order to stay away from the area, but he was quickly reintegrated into the same system that had just released him in a process partially shielded from public view.

His previous case drew attention to how it shed light on the city's struggle to deal with a mentally ill man suspected of committing crimes on multiple occasions, which ultimately informed a proposal to change the public mental health crisis care from a Washington Council member. Some residents and others involved in the system say his latest arrest demonstrates how much work still needs to be done.

Dunkley could not be detained pending trial due to the low level of charges against him in the Oct. 23 attack, in which police say he became enraged after a teacher refused to give him money. Court records say he bloodied a teacher's nose, hit another teacher in the head, exposed himself and committed a lewd act in front of two dozen toddlers who had interrupted their daily walk to sit on a small stone wall, sip water and sing songs. All of this happened as a city was reeling from a surge in shootings, carjackings and robberies, and this case seemed to cross a new threshold of violent acts that city residents have were forced to endure.

His lawyer did not return his request for an interview. Neither did his sister, who initially struggled to access information about Dunkley's care before gaining legal guardianship. For Ham-Campbell, who relied on a board member to keep him informed of Dunkley's condition as his case progressed, his release and re-arrest showed him that the system had failed the people he is. supposed to help and the residents it is supposed to protect.

While saying Dunkley should be allowed some privacy, she praised efforts to make systems-level changes, such as a bill from D.C. Council member Christina Henderson (I-At Large) aimed at to extend the length of time a person in a mental health crisis can be involuntarily under emergency observation from seven to 15 days, to give health workers more time to complete an assessment.

“It’s about one individual in one neighborhood,” Ham-Campbell said. “Unfortunately, there are probably Dunkleys in many neighborhoods. What do we do with them? That is the question.”

Simon Fuerstenberg, executive director of the Washington-based Consumer Advocate Network, which advocates for people with mental health issues, said it can be difficult to balance patients' rights and public safety. He said the Department of Behavioral Health's goal “should be to prepare [patients] be released”, with the help they need to remain free from detention, but without posing a threat to citizens.

“Ultimately, the system is not serving the people who need it most,” Fuerstenberg said, adding that the system needs more staff, more transparency and more oversight.

In a statement, the Department of Behavioral Health said assistance was provided “in the least restrictive environment.” Officials said the agency's psychiatrists can recommend to judges that a person be treated at Saint Elizabeths Hospital and, if discharged, continue treatment through “high-intensity services, housing with support services and regular assessments to support the resident’s lasting recovery and patient well-being.” the whole community. »

Court records show authorities held Dunkley for mental health observation for months after his Oct. 23 arrest, with periodic civil commitment hearings — one of which a Washington Post reporter attempted to observe on April 25.

The audience was held under the auspices of the Commission on Mental Health, psychiatrists appointed by the chief justice and chaired by a judge, charged with determining treatment options for psychiatric patients under court-ordered care. Magistrate Judge Janet E. Albert of Washington Superior Court oversaw the hearing, which included two psychiatrists.

Dunkley was represented by an attorney from the Public Defender Service. His sister was also present. An attorney from the D.C. Attorney General's Office represented the Department of Behavioral Health. Both lawyers objected to the presence of a journalist and requested that the hearing be closed to the public.

Michael Vlcek of the Attorney General's Office said that “we provide information regarding the release that is confidential.” He said he was concerned that the public might find out Dunkley's release date and where he might live, which could cause problems for him because of the publicity generated by the case.

Albert ordered the hearing closed, and its outcome was not revealed until May 3 in Dunkley's criminal case, reporting his imminent release on May 6. It is unclear what Dunkley's treatment plan was following his release from Saint Elizabeths, nor how the decision to release him was reached. Court records indicate only that he was placed in outpatient care.

Authorities said he could not be jailed while awaiting trial after his release from the hospital because none of his charges rose to the threshold of a felony. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office declined to comment, citing a policy of not discussing charging decisions. Prosecutors wrote in a court document that they would seek Dunkley's detention “if the government developed sufficient evidence to charge a violent or dangerous crime” specified by Washington law.

Court documents show prosecutors last year asked a judge to impose several restrictions if released, including barring Dunkley from a roughly 24-block area of ​​Bloomingdale, placing him under surveillance before trial and assign him a GPS tracking device.

The conditions were “necessary to reasonably ensure the safety of the community if the defendant were released,” wrote Assistant United States Attorney Dana M. Joseph, who noted that the random and repeated nature of the alleged offenses “is easily placed on the more serious side of the situation. the spectrum of criminal conduct.

A judge granted the dismissal order and the surveillance, but not the GPS device.