Free Order of Detention - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cr-00369-LTB

Document 56

Filed 04/20/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Gudrun J. Rice UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TRAVIS SANDERS Case Number 04-cr-00369-LTB ORDER OF DETENTION This matter was before the Court for preliminary hearing and detention hearing on supervised release violations on April 20, 2007. Suneeta Hazra, appearing for Judith Smith, represented the government and Don Lozow represented the Defendant, who was present in custody. Preliminary and detention hearing were held. The court heard the testimony of Kurt Pierpont, senior probation officer, and has considered the argument of counsel. The government moved for detention of this defendant pending hearing on the petition on supervised release. The defendant has been charged with violating the conditions of his supervised release or probation after conviction. The Bail Reform Act (" Act" at section 3143 requires detention unless the judicial officer finds by clear the ) and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released under section 3142(b) or (c). See 18 U.S.C. §3143. Under Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 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. See Rule 32.1(a)(6). Defendant was placed on supervision by the Honorable Lewis T. Babcock, sitting in the court at Denver, Colorado on the 11th day of March 2005, who fixed the period of supervision at three (3) years commencing September 21, 2006. Defendant has been charged with violating the terms and conditions of his supervised release. Particularly, defendant is charged with 1) violating the law by committing, on March 9, 2007, the crime of possession of a weapon by a prohibited person, in violation of C.R.S. 18-12-108; and 2) with failure to participate in drug testing and treatment as directed by the probation officer, by failing to keep counseling appointments or provide urine samples on November 6 and 8, 2006, December 28, 2006 and February 19, 2007. See March 13, 2007 Petition on supervised release and Attachment thereto. The Bail Reform Act, at 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), directs the court to consider the

Case 1:04-cr-00369-LTB

Document 56

Filed 04/20/2007

Page 2 of 3

following factors in determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of any other person and the community: (1) [t]he nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; the weight of the evidence against the person; the history and characteristics of the person, including ­ (A) the person' character, physical and mental condition, family ties, s employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning appearance at court proceedings; and (B) whether at the time of the current offense or arrest, the person was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under Federal, State or local law; and

(2) (3)

(4)

the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person' release. s

In making my findings of fact, I have considered the information in the petition for revocation of supervised release, of which I take judicial notice, and the testimony of the senior probation officer Kurt Pierpont. Weighing the statutory factors set forth in the Bail Reform Act, I make the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for detention. First, defendant is charged with violating the conditions of supervised release by violating a law and by failing to participate in drug testing and treatment as directed by the probation officer. Second, after hearing, I find that there is probable cause to believe that the alleged violations occurred. Third, the defendant has been charged, by indictment, in case number 07-cr00150-LTB with possession of a firearm by a previously convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). Fourth, the defendant pled guilty on July 2, 1998 to first degree assault, serious injury with deadly weapon, in the Denver County District Court Docket No. 98CR643. 2

Case 1:04-cr-00369-LTB

Document 56

Filed 04/20/2007

Page 3 of 3

The defendant also entered a guilty plea on December 3, 2004 to the charge of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person in the U.S. District Court, Docket Number 04-cr-00369-LTB.

Finally, the defendant has not met his burden of showing that there are conditions of release that would assure that the defendant would not flee or that would assure the safety of the community. I am unable to find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community. As a result, after considering all of these factors, I conclude that the defendant has violated one or more of the conditions of supervised release. Defendant has not shown that he is not a flight risk or that there are conditions under which I could release him and be assured that he would appear for court proceedings. Further, the defendant has not shown that he will not pose a danger to any other person or to the community if he were released. For the reasons stated, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant is a flight risk and a danger to the public and is to be detained pending further proceedings. It is further ORDERED that defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his designee for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences, or being held in custody pending appeal. It is further ORDERED that defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel. It is further ORDERED that upon an order of a court of the United States, or upon request of an attorney for the Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which the defendant is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with any Court proceeding in this matter. Dated April 20, 2007. By the Court: s/Gudrun J Rice Gudrun J. Rice, Magistrate Judge

3