Free Order of Detention - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:00-cr-00308-WYD

Document 37

Filed 10/19/2006

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case No.: 00-cr-00308-WYD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. JACOB LEE SORENSEN, Defendant.

ORDER OF DETENTION THIS MATTER came before the Court for a detention hearing on October 18, 2006. Present were the following: David Connor, Assistant United States Attorney, Lafonda Jones, counsel for the defendant, and the defendant. The Court reviewed the entire court file and considered the comments of counsel. The Court has concluded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant, based upon the attached findings. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or their 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; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant is to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to consult confidentially with defense counsel; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon order of this Court or on request of an attorney for the United States of America, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver defendant to the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with this proceeding. DATED and ENTERED this 19th day of October, 2006. By the Court: s/ Craig B. Shaffer Craig B. Shaffer United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:00-cr-00308-WYD

Document 37

Filed 10/19/2006

Page 2 of 2

United States v. Jacob Lee Sorensen Case Number 00-cr-00308-WYD

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW and REASONS FOR ORDER OF DETENTION This matter comes before the court on a Petition on Supervised Release and Warrant for Arrest of Probationer/Supervised Release. The Petition alleges that on January 17, 2001, the defendant was placed on supervision by District Judge Daniel, with the special conditions that the defendant participate in a program of testing and treatment for drug abuse, and that the defendant abstain from the use of alcohol and other intoxicants during the course of treatment. The defendant also was required to participate in a program of mental health treatment. During a hearing on October 18, 2006, the defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing under Rule 32.1 of the Federal of Criminal Procedure, and did not present any information relating to the issue of detention. The defendant, through counsel, also advised the court that he was not contesting the government' request for detention. Based upon the facts s alleged in the Petition and in light of the defendant' waiver, the court finds that probable cause s exists to believe that the defendant violated one or more conditions of his release. Under Rule 32.1, the court " may release or detain the [defendant] under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a) pending further proceedings. The burden of establishing that the person will not flee or pose a danger to any other person or to the community rests with the [defendant]." In making my findings of fact, I have taken judicial notice of the information set forth in the Petition on Supervised Release and the entire court file. I further note the defendant' s decision not to contest detention at this time. Weighing all of the information presently before the court, I find that defendant has failed to sustain his burden under Rule 32.1. I specifically note that the Petition on Supervised Release indicates the defendant possessed and used illegal controlled substances (methamphetamine) on October 14, November 22, and December 14, 2005, and February 6, April 19, and April 28, 2006. The Petition further alleges that in March, April, May and June 2006, the defendant repeatedly failed to provide required urine samples, and that in March, April and May 2006, the defendant repeatedly failed to attend substance abuse counseling as required. Given the defendant' apparent failure to comply with the conditions of supervised s release imposed by the District Court, I find there is no combination of conditions that I could set that would properly assure the defendant' appearance at further proceedings in this case. s