Sex offender with four FTA warrants released by police due to full jail

JONESBORO, Ark. – A registered sex offender with a non-updated address, a suspended license, four failure to appear warrants was cited and released after a traffic stop Monday morning because the jail was full.

The intersection of Richmond and Rains in Jonesboro was where the traffic violation happened, an incident report with JPD said. Just after midnight Monday morning, Officer Bryan Davis noticed a Hyundai Sonota fail to come to a complete stop. After it rolled through the intersection, the officer began the traffic stop. At Nettleton and Country Club, the officer made contact with Bruce Jones, 49, of Jonesboro. 

Dispatch informed the officer Jones had several failure to appear warrants, was a registered sex offender and had a suspended license, the police report said. His address was listed as 950 West Cherry Avenue but he advised he lived at 421 Richmond.

This would normally result in an arrest but the jail was at capacity. Jones was cited for registered offender/incorrect permanent address on ID card, four failure to appear warrants, running a stop sign, driving with a suspended or revoked license.

The report then said the man was released.

Several recent reports have indicated suspects who would normally be incarcerated were instead released. The Craighead County Detention Center, where Jonesboro inmates are housed, falls under the purview of Craighead County Sheriff Marty Boyd. He spoke to NEA Report on Tuesday and said the biggest reason this happened, in short, was because the jail is 27 years old and needs to be upgraded – or replaced.

“We have expanded it but unfortunately, our growth population and our crime population has grown over the past 27 years and we’re at a point to where the jail can easily get to capacity,” Boyd said.

Crime becomes more prevalent during this time of year, Boyd said, because of a number of reasons. With it being hot, people are cooped up inside with each other more and domestic disturbances go up. Days get longer, which he said contributes, along with it being more of a “party time season” than the fall or winter.

“People get out and tend to drink more,” Boyd said. “There’s always an uptick in arrests this time of year.”

Yet another factor comes from the recent arrest roundup known as Operation Stamp Em. Boyd said that put more felony arrests in the jail than usual and felonies are what fills the jail to capacity.

Under law, the sheriff said he must house felony arrests in the jail but he is not obligated to hold misdemeanors. Even when full, the sheriff said he must keep some emergency beds available for felons that come in.

The jail has a “perfect” capacity of 400, if each of the separated populations were filled. Since that never happens, the sheriff said, they begin to feel strain at 360.

Populations must be separated based on status, including groups for felon status male, misdemeanor status male, special needs male inmates, female felony and misdemeanor status inmates and a separate juvenile facility. The juvenile facility houses 62.

The last expansion was in 2007, when 14 beds were added to the booking area. The Craighead County Quroum Court approved the move in a $1.2 million expansion.

As of 5 p.m. Tuesday, the jail did once again have space available for new inmates, the sheriff said.

Follow NEA Report on Twitter and Facebook for the latest news developments from across Northeast Arkansas.

Support us on Patreon to help us grow.


  1. Anyone else take a look at where 421 Richmond is exactly ?
    Thought sex-offenders couldn’t live within 1000 feet of a school or childcare facilities ?
    This dude is only a couple hundred feet from a playground and school.
    JPD might have made an error in letting him go “home” ???

    • I found this on, because I wondered the same thing.

      “Where Sex Offenders Can Live

      Are there restrictions on where a sex offender can live?
      It depends. Sex offenders who are under probation or parole supervision must have their home approved in order to make sure that it is appropriate (for example, not near or with children). Those offenders who are not under a court order or correctional supervision, however, and who are in the community without supervision have no such restrictions (unless they live in a jurisdiction that has residency restrictions).

      What are residency restrictions? To whom do they apply?
      Residency restrictions identify certain locations as “child congregation areas” (e.g., schools and childcare facilities, parks, playgrounds, churches, gyms, swimming pools, libraries, school bus stops). A distance around those areas forms a “zone” that is legally off-limits to sex offenders. These are often referred to as “child safety zones.” Sex offenders who live in places with these restrictions typically cannot live within 500 to 2,000 feet of places where children congregate. Some communities do not allow sex offenders to travel through their zones on foot, or by bus or car.

      Isn’t it true that sex offenders aren’t allowed to live with children?
      Sex offenders (particularly those who have victimized children) who are on parole or probation, or who are subject to other court mandates, may have restrictions that limit their contact with and/or ability to reside with children. Sex offenders who have served their time and completed their community supervision have no restrictions on who they can live with.

      How do I know if a sex offender is “safe” enough to live in a home with children? Isn’t it probably safe if he/she only offended against an adult?
      Questions about whether an offender may be “safe” are best answered by someone with expertise in sex offender issues (such as the offender’s treatment provider or a qualified evaluator). It is important to remember that no one, even an “expert,” can guarantee that an offender will not reoffend, no matter who he or she has offended against in the past. Decisions about safety (especially when contact with children is involved) are best left for a qualified team of professionals.”

      So I am guessing that 1) the person in question in this article is not under probation or parole supervision, and 2) there are no residency restrictions in Jonesboro?

  2. Wow. The over-paid and under-performing higher-ups exposed as thieves and liars again. They rake in more tax dollars than would even be needed to maintain a top-performing criminal justice and prison system but diver the money to themselves and their pet projects and parties, brag (lie) about what a low crime rate Jonesboro has and resort to turning the perverts loose on the taxpayers to do more crimes. More liberal lunatic politics. Sucks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.