Free Order of Detention - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:02-cr-00515-WDM

Document 56

Filed 08/15/2006

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case No.: 02-cr-00515-WDM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. MATHEW ROSEN, Defendant.

ORDER OF DETENTION THIS MATTER came before the Court for a detention hearing on August 15, 2006. Present were the following: Peter Walsh, Assistant United States Attorney, Ralph Rhodes, counsel for the defendant, and the defendant. The Court reviewed the entire court file and considered the argument 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 15th of August, 2006. By the Court: s/ Craig B. Shaffer Craig B. Shaffer United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:02-cr-00515-WDM

Document 56

Filed 08/15/2006

Page 2 of 2

United States v. Matthew Rosen Case Number 02-cr-00515-WDM

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW and REASONS FOR ORDER OF DETENTION This matter comes before the court on a Petition for Issuance of Arrest Warrant for Violations of Supervised Release and Warrant for Arrest of Probationer/Supervised Release. The Petition alleges that on July 26, 1993, the defendant was placed on supervision by the District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, with the special conditions that the defendant submit to a drug test when ordered by the supervising officer, that the defendant participate in a program of substance abuse treatment if deemed necessary by the supervising officer, and that the defendant participate in a program of mental health treatment as directed by the supervising officer. Jurisdiction over this case was transferred to the District of Colorado on October 17, 2003. Conditions of supervision were modified on November 4, 2002, to require that the defendant reside in a community corrections facility for a period of up to 120 days. Conditions were again modified on November 26, 2002, to require the defendant to participate in a program of testing and treatment for alcohol abuse. During a hearing on August 24, 2005, the defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing under Rule 32.1 of the Federal of Criminal Procedure. Based upon the facts alleged in the Petition and in light of the defendant' waiver, the court finds that probable cause exists to believe s 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 and the entire court file. I further note the arguments of counsel during the detention hearing on August 15th. 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 indicates that the defendant possessed and used illegal controlled substances (cocaine) on January 25, January 30, July 9, and July 31, 2006. This pattern of drug use is consistent with defendant' s drug usage during supervised release in 1999, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. The Petition further alleges that the defendant failed to participate in drug testing and treatment as required by the supervising officer. These same behaviors were exhibited by the defendant in 2005. During the hearing on August 15th, defense counsel asked the court to release his client to a 45-day inpatient drug treatment program. Based upon the defendant' lengthy history of violations and his s unwillingness to comply with the requirements of drug treatment in the past, the court concluded that defense counsel' proposal was not warranted. Given the defendant' apparent failure to s s comply with the conditions of supervised 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 s at further proceedings in this case.