Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cr-00096-SLR Document 11 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 1 of 2
% AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial .
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of Delaware
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL .
.Lee Francis Blotzer Case Q 7.. Q6 UA)/,7
Defendant
ln accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), a detention heating has been held. I conclude that the following facts require the
detention of the defendant pending trial in this case.
Part I—Findings of Fact
Q (1) The defendant is charged with an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1) and has been convicted of a Q federal offense Q state
or local offense that would have been a federal offense if a circumstance giving rise to federal jurisdiction had existed that is
Q a crime of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 3156(a)(4). 4
Q an offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death. I
Q an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in Q
Q a felony that was committed after the defendant had been convicted of two or more prior federal offenses described in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3 l42(f)(1)(A)-(C), or comparable state or local offenses.
Q (2) The offense described in finding (l) was committed while the defendant was on release pending trial for a federal, state or local offense.
Q (3) A period of not more than five years has elapsed since the Q date of conviction Q release of the defendant from imprisonment
for the offense described in finding (1).
Q (4) Findings Nos, (1), (2) and (3) establish a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the
safety of (an) other person(s) and the community. l further find that the defendant has not rebutted this presumption.
Alternative Findings (A)
(l) There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense
for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in .
Q under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
Q (2) The defendant has not rebutted the presumption established by finding l that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure
the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the community.
Alternative Findings (B) i
(1) There is a serious risk that the defendant will not appear.
(2) There is a serious risk that the defendant will endanger the safety of another person or the commun r--· —e~- · g -..- .
5% A E €-[ti .
{ ti ri il. rl .. {:.52 ‘
"T 7i ’*’•‘*7¤‘? ¤ T-‘ Wit.;-¤~.>,. .. , _'-_—,·.:~;—-··:,;::;-:::-H
. u l i
i ` . g
. i- F
` g ..-. ; < is ‘i:{1*"1
Part II—Written Statement of Reasons for Detention __ g
l find that the credible testimony and information submitted at the hearing establishes by clear and convi ciii§v“iieii_t§TT#T':a"prEi5’fiTTi""
derance of the evidence: Defendant was detained because there are no conditions or combination thereof that will reasonable assure his
appearance as requred and the safety of the community . Defendant is charged with child pom offense for which the rebuttable presumption applies.
Defendant has not rebutted that presumption and the evidence against defendant is substantial in support ofthe offense, which supports the issue
of danger to the community.
1. Defendant has multiple charges of production of child pom, receipt and transmission of child porn and obscenity depicting children and
possession of child porn. The evidence shows that he intentionally disctributed/transmitted child porn over an extensive period of time.
2. Defendant lost his employment in May 2007.
3. Defendant was convicted of reckless driving in August 2005 , and found in VOP in August 2006 and again in May 2007.
gy ,,,,4,/ 44.,3% 9./:z.¢.e»e;6m»?A#4»a¢¢• .0: &5··%·¤/¢¢»¢ ¢¢‘·’4"’-’

Case 1 :07-cr-00096-SLR Document 11 Filed 07/19/2007 Page 2 of 2
% AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial -
Part II1—Directions Regarding Detention
The defendant is committed to the custody ofthe Attorney General or his designated representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate,
to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or sewing sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a
reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the
Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the defenda • t = nite ; .· marshal for the purpose of an appearance in
connection with a court proceeding. /
July 19. 2007 -4 1;,
Date if _` zgrmture 0fJudici
·/ ary Pat Thynge, Ma strate Judge
Name and T itle 0fJudicia! Ojicer
‘ *Insert as applicable: (a) Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.); (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. § 951 et
seq.); or (c) Section l ofAct ofSept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a).