Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-cr-00020-SLR Document 12 Filed 05/10/2005 Page 1 of 2
% AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial
District of Delaware
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
Joseph B. DeStefano Case Number: C »2O / MT
Defendant
In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3 l42(f), a detention hearing 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. § 3 l42(f)(l) 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. § 3l56(a)(4).
Q an offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death. _
Q an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in
·•=
Q a felony that was committed alier the defendant had been convicted of two or more prior federal offenses described in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(f)(l)(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. I further find that the defendant has not rebutted this presumption.
Alternative Findings (A)
Q (1) There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense
Q 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 1 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)
(1) There is a serious risk that the defendant will not appear.
X (2) There is a serious risk that the defendant will endanger the safety of another person or the community.
Part II—Written Statement of Reasons for Detention
I find that the credible testimony and information submitted at the hearing establishes by X clear and convincing evidence a prepon-
derance of the evidence . Defendant has numerous fireann charges (6 counts of false statement to purchase, 6 counts of theft from firearm’s dealer
5 counts interstate transport of stolen firearms, dealing without a license and gossessionof fireann by drug user). Defendanrt resides with his
mother in New York. He admitted to purchasing the weapons and admitted to 3 additional firearms not included in the indictment. The
firearm dealers remember defendant from his numerous tattoos. On the ATF fomi defendant misrepresented that he the end user and that he did not
use illegal drugs. Defendant admitted to illegal drug use (marijuana, crack, and prior addictions). Marijuana was found in his possession. In this
state, he has not ties and since August 2004, defendant has lived at three different residences. All charges are considered crimes of violence in
this jurisdiction. Defendant has not financial resourses. Moreover, when defendant was first caught, he was warned by ATF to stop buying guns.
Within 24 hours, he was purchasing another weapon. Further in January 2005, defendant threatened an individual by stating that "he would put
a gun in her face." Prior to his arrest, and before living at his mother’s address, defendant had been living with his wife in Dover, however,
after arrest charges were lodged against her in February 2005, he was ordered to have no contact with her. Despite having no assets, pursuant to
DMV, defendant has three cars in his name. Since June 2004 after treatment, he has not used crack, but apparently is still using marijuana. His
mother ws unaware of defendant’s past addiction to crack and only was aware of marijuana use. Defendant admitted to two prior arrests in
NY for possession of marijuana and theft. Defendant’s substance abuse history, the nature of the offenses, instability of residency all strongly
suggest that defendant is a risk of flight and danger to the community.
_
{Hr .Ir\II•Ir•.•.·‘_
!—
d
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF IIFLAWARE

Case 1 :05-cr-00020-SLR Document 12 Filed 05/10/2005 Page 2 of 2
Qt AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial
Part III—Directions Regarding Detention
The defendant is committed to the custody ofthe Attomey General or his designated representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate,
to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving 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 ofthe United States or on request of an attomey for the
Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility sh - · er t e def· · · ·¤ · nited States marshal for the purpose of an appearance
in connection with a court proceeding. I 4
April 28, 2005 A · 14.4/, 2,
Date Y ` Signature of Jud ial I ji cer
Mary Pat Thynge, agistrate Judge
Name and Title of Judicial Ojficer
*lnse1t as applicable: (a) Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.); (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. § 95l
et seq.); or (c) Section 1 of Act of Sept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a).