Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :08-cr-00011-GIVIS Document 16 Filed 05/14/2008 Page 1 ot 2
te AO 472 (Rev. I2/03) Order of Detention Pending Trial
District of DELAWARE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
TYE ANDERSON, Case Number: 08-l I-GMS
Defendant
In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, IS U.S.C. § 3 l42(f), a detention hearing has been held. I conclude that the following facts require the
detention ofthe defendant pending trial in this case.
Part I—Findings of Fact
Q (I) The defendant is charged with an offense described in IS U.S.C. § 3 l42(f)(l) and has been convicted ofa 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 IS 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 often years or more is prescribed in
»·
Q a felony that was committed after the defendant had been convicted of two or more prior federal offenses described in IS U.S.C.
§ 3l42(f)(l)(A)-(C), or comparable state or local offenses.
Q (2) The offense described in finding (I) 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 ofthe defendant from imprisonment
for the offense described in finding (I).
Q (4) Findings Nos. (I), (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)
X (I) There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense
X for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in 2] USC § 846 .
Q under IS U.S.C. § 924(c).
X (2) The defendant has not rebutted the presumption established by finding I that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure
the appearance ofthe defendant as required and the safety ofthe community.
Alternative Findings (B)
Q (I) There is a serious risk that the defendant will not appear.
Q (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
'3 'I 'llli il 1. "2' .‘2 '§". !'_ 5** ". "". *" '. ,’€-: = -Z{ Z‘11;' ‘1 ';‘ £"" = in •|

Based on the information before the Court, including that provided by the probation oflice as well as the parties by proffer during the detention
hearing, the Court finds that the Defendant has failed to rebut the statutory presumption that no combination of conditions could reasonably assure
the safety ofthe community between now and the time oftrial and that the Defendant would appear for all Court events in this matter.
The Court has reached these conclusions based on the following findings and for the following reasons, as further articulated by the Court during
the hearing: the Defendant was released to residential drug treatment shortly after his initial appearance in March 2008 on charges of Conspiracy to
Possess with Intent to Distribute Heroin, to be followed by non-residential drug treatment at the discretion of Pretrial Services. The Defendant
completed 30 days of residential drug treatment but it did not eliminate his I9-year addiction to heroin. It is uncontested that soon after his release
from residential treatment the Defendant began using heroin again, as confirmed by three positive drug tests and the Defendant’s failure to appear as
required for non-residential drug treatment.
The Court finds that under any conditions short of residential drug treatment the Defendant would continue to use heroin, which would render him
both a danger to the community and a high risk of failure to appear for coun proceedings. The Defendant has had his opportunity to participate in
residential treatment and it has tailed. Accordingly, the only condition that remains available is pretrial detention.

Case 1 :08-cr-00011-GIVIS Document 16 Filed 05/14/2008 Page 2 of 2
& AO 472 (Rev. l2/03) Order of Detention Pending Trial
Part Il[—Directi0ns Regarding Detention
The defendant is committed tothe custody ofthe Attorney 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 of the United States or on request of an attorney for the
Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the defe dant to the United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance
in connection with a court proceeding. Q 1
MAY MTH, 2008
Date Srgrrarure of Judge
Hon. Leonard P. Stark - U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Name and Title of Judge
*Inscrt as applicable: (a) Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § S0} at seq.); (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (2l U.S.C. § 95]
etseq); or (c) Section I ofActofSept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. §955a).

Case 1:08-cr-00011-GMS

Document 16

Filed 05/14/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:08-cr-00011-GMS

Document 16

Filed 05/14/2008

Page 2 of 2