Wilkinsburg man’s preliminary hearing results in dropped charge of attacking a police dog | TribLIVE.com
Allegheny

Wilkinsburg man’s preliminary hearing results in dropped charge of attacking a police dog

Dillon Carr
1304125_web1_php-excessiveforce01-062019
Rayquane Jamal Bowles-Wilds
1304125_web1_php-excessiveforcefolo01-062719
Penn Hills District Court

A Wilkinsburg man pleaded not guilty to the charges leveled against him after a Penn Hills traffic stop on June 7 turned violent as several officers and a police dog worked to detain him.

Rayquane J. Bowles-Wilds, 21, was pulled over on Chaske Street in Penn Hills after officers said he made an illegal u-turn and noticed the smell of marijuana coming from the vehicle. The arresting officer, Nathan Laero, also said the car’s windows were too dark to see inside.

Bowles-Wilds was eventually arrested because police said he initially refused to provide identification, attempted to get away and assaulted a police officer who tried to detain him. Three videos posted to social media show parts of the arrest that a group has said shows law enforcement officers using excessive force against Bowles-Wilds.

One video shows an officer put his knee on Bowles-Wilds’ head, which was against concrete, while three other officers and a police dog work to detain a writhing Bowles-Wilds.

Milton Raiford, Bowles-Wilds’ attorney, argued Monday to Magisterial District Court Judge Anthony DeLuca during a preliminary hearing that a charge of attacking a police dog was unnecessary.

“I don’t know anybody in this world that would be bitten by an animal and wouldn’t try to kick the animal off of him,” Raiford said.

DeLuca agreed and dropped that charge. He also reset his $3,000 bail to non-monetary after Raiford pointed to his client’s needs to provide for his family and getting back to his two jobs.

Raiford also requested the judge to lessen an aggravated assault charge and to dismiss charges related to possession of marijuana with intent to deliver.

Those charges, however, were held and the case will continue to Allegheny County Court in August.

Raiford said he could not argue against the charge of resisting arrest but said “there are some constitutional issues” that he would need to address in a higher court.

The defendant’s attorney became passionate at points during the hearing and at one point stood and asked Laero to show what he meant when he said Bowles-Wilds tried to “walk past” and “get away.”

DeLuca said the demonstration was unnecessary.

At another point during the hearing, Raiford attempted to admit into evidence a photo of what he said showed marks on Bowles-Wilds back made by the use of a Taser. Laero previously testified he had used a Taser three different times on Bowles-Wilds.

It was unclear during the hearing what Raiford’s reasoning was in showing the photo.

DeLuca said he and the plaintiff’s attorney, Michelle H. Shefton, had no way of verifying whose back the photo showed and declined to accept it as evidence.

Bowles-Wilds’ family and some friends showed up to the preliminary hearing.

“I want my son out (of jail). I want him to get back to his business and raising his family,” said Kisha Bowles, Bowles-Wilds’ mother. She said he has a four-month-old daughter and that her son is “a very good kid.”

“If (police officers) did something wrong to my son, they’re going to get it back. That’s the whole thing,” she said, adding she will pray for her son’s case.

Dillon Carr is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Dillon at 412-871-2325, [email protected] or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.