Agreeing with the findings and recommendation of the Judicial Standards Commission based on a stipulation, the North Carolina Supreme Court suspended a judge for 120 days without pay for (1) in a call to a county magistrate’s office, using her judicial title to inquire about the custody status of her son without disclosing their relationship, yelling at the magistrate, and demanding a bond reduction based on inaccurate information and (2) without notifying the chief judge, demanding that an assistant district attorney and a magistrate vacate a courtroom so that she could use it, resulting in over 100 cases being continued.  In re Inquiry Concerning Foster (North Carolina Supreme Court March 22, 2024).

(1) On March 2022, at 10:48 p.m., the Wake County Magistrates’ Office received a phone call from “Foster, Angela” according to the caller identification.  When Magistrate Lauren May answered the call, the caller identified herself, indicated that she was a Guilford County District Court Judge, and asked if a defendant named Alexander Pinnix was in Wake County custody.  After looking in the system, Magistrate May confirmed to the judge that Wake County had Pinnix in custody on a $1,000 secured bond.  The judge then began speaking loudly and requesting that Magistrate May change Pinnix’s bond to a written promise to appear.  The request confused Magistrate May because the judge was not a Wake County judge, but May did not want to come across as rude, so she asked to put the judge on a brief hold to look at the case file.  May found that Pinnix was being held on charges of resisting a public officer and misdemeanor breaking or entering that had been sworn out before a Wake County magistrate with a bond set by a different Wake County magistrate.

Before returning to the call, Magistrate May asked for the assistance of her 3 colleagues, who were near her cubicle.  The 4 magistrates concluded, based on their training and experience, that the judge had no reason to be involved with the case and that the situation sounded strange.

When Magistrate May returned to the call, she asked the judge to explain her involvement with Pinnix’s case and to provide a basis for changing the bond.  Based on the judge’s response, Magistrate May explained that she did not feel comfortable altering another magistrate’s bond.  The judge then requested the telephone numbers of the magistrates who had been involved with the case so that she could call them at home to ask them to change the bond.  Magistrate May declined to provide their numbers but suggested that the judge call the Wake County Chief District Court Judge.  The judge became extremely angry at this suggestion, indicated that she would never dream of calling a district court judge at that time of night, and again demanded that Magistrate May alter the bond.  Magistrate May suggested that the judge could wait until morning to call the chief judge.  This suggestion upset the judge even more; Magistrate May’s 3 co-workers could hear the judge yelling at her through the phone receiver.  The judge stressed that the bond needed to be changed that evening, explaining to Magistrate May that Pinnix had to be in court in Guilford County in the morning for a child custody case and that his children would be taken away if he was not present.

Magistrate May then muted the phone and requested the assistance of the other magistrates.  At their suggestion, Magistrate May offered the judge the phone number for the Chief Magistrate.  The phone call ended shortly thereafter.  The judge did not contact the Chief Magistrate regarding Pinnix’s bond that evening.

Due to “the strange nature of the phone call,” the amount of personal information the judge had about Pinnix, and how upset the judge had become, Magistrate May and her colleagues looked up the judge on the internet and learned that she was Pinnix’s mother.  During the phone conversation, the judge had not disclosed her relationship with Pinnix, but instead led Magistrate May to believe that Pinnix was a litigant in her courtroom.  Magistrate May wrote down her recollection of the call and reported the incident to her Chief Magistrate.

Court documents showed that Pinnix did not have a child custody case or any other case pending in Guilford County.

(2) On July 22, 2022, Chief District Court Judge Teresa Vincent issued an administrative order that stated:  “In High Point, administrative traffic court and 3B waiver court will be combined into courtroom 3B.  The Courtroom 3B shall be open Mondays and Fridays from 8:30 am until 12:30 pm.”  This order was distributed to all High Point Courthouse employees, including judges.

On November 1, the judge alerted Judge Vincent by text that the courtroom she had been assigned for November 7 would not meet the needs of her abuse, neglect, and dependency court session because there was a case scheduled in which 2 parents were charged with the murder of their child and could not be in the courtroom at the same time, which required extra security and staff.  In response, Judge Vincent suggested that Judge Foster take over courtroom 3B after traffic court concluded.  Judge Foster expressed concern that the traffic court would not be run “with the goal of finishing in an efficient manner;” Judge Vincent replied, “I am sure they will finish court as soon as they can in order to handle other tasks.”  No other contingency plans were discussed.

At approximately 8:30 a.m., on November 7, the judge went to courtroom 3B and informed the assistant district attorney there that she might need the courtroom.  The ADA told her how many cases were on his docket and reminded her of Judge Vincent’s administrative order that traffic court be open in courtroom 3B from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.  After the judge left, the ADA told the magistrate presiding about the conversation and then began traffic court as usual.

After this conversation, Judge Foster returned to her assigned courtroom and informed everyone there that they would be moving to courtroom 4C, a superior court courtroom, without getting approval from Judge Vincent and the senior superior court judge.

While the judge was holding her district court session in courtroom 4C, the superior court administrator walked past and heard voices.  When the administrator realized what the judge was doing, she asked why the judge was there.  The judge replied, “Oh they didn’t tell you either. . . I needed to use this courtroom.”  The court administrator told the judge that she was not aware that anyone would be using the courtroom, then went to her office and called her supervisor, who told Judge Vincent.

At 9:37 a.m., Judge Vincent confronted Judge Foster by text about her use of the superior court courtroom without permission, stating that that was not the plan they had discussed and ordering the judge to vacate the courtroom.  In response, the judge claimed that the bailiffs had given her permission to use courtroom 4C; when Judge Vincent asked the sheriff’s office, they denied giving her permission.

At approximately 10:00 a.m., the judge left courtroom 4C, returned to courtroom 3B, and informed the ADA that she needed his courtroom.  The ADA told the judge that he still had a full courtroom, but she told him to vacate the courtroom.  The ADA and the presiding magistrate closed down the traffic court, finishing any case the ADA had already started to address but informing the remaining citizens that their cases would be continued.  As a result, more than 100 cases were not addressed, which frustrated “many members of the public.”

The Commission concluded that the judge had abused her power “by misleading and bullying a magistrate in an attempt to have her son released from custody” and, after being charged by the Commission for that incident, abused her power again by forcing more than 100 cases to be continued so that she could use a courtroom.  The Commission also stressed that the judge had committed these abuses after being publicly censured for abusing her power in the courtroom in 2019.  In that case, the judge had berated and threatened 15-year-old twins who refused to visit their father and directed the bailiff to handcuff and escort their mother out of the courtroom even though she had not displayed any contemptuous behavior and was not given an opportunity to be heard.  In re Foster, 832 S.E.2d 684 (North Carolina 2019).