United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge.
COURT conducted a hearing under the Bail Reform Act, 18
U.S.C. § 3142(e), (g) on the government's Motion for
Detention (Dkt. 4) on December 16, 2019 and determined that
detention is appropriate because no condition or combination
of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of any other
person and the community.
defendant is charged in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California with possession with
intent to distribute at least one kilogram of heroin, which
carries a maximum penalty of ten years or more. Dkt. 1:
Charging documents in United States v. Scott, No. MJ
18-2629, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, at 7. Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(c)(2),
(3), and 5(d), Mr. Scott was arrested in Washington State and
was brought to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington for an initial appearance on
December 16, 2019. Dkt. 5. Mr. Scott waived the Fed. R. Crim.
P. 5(c)(3) hearing regarding identity and consented to be
transferred to the Central District of California. Dkt. 7.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(c), (d), it is important for the Court in
the arresting jurisdiction to consider the interests of the
charging jurisdiction. In this matter, The United States
District Court for the Central District of California has an
interest in following up on the Complaint and arrest warrant,
and this Court should ensure the defendant appears for
proceedings in that Court. United States v.
Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 704-05 (7th Cir.
1986); United States v. Savader, 944 F.Supp.2d 209,
213-215 (E.D.N.Y. 2013).
defendant is entitled to a presumption of innocence, and
under the Bail Reform Act, the Court is required to determine
-- taking into full consideration the defendant's
constitutional rights and that the defendant is presumed
innocent -- whether the defendant should nevertheless be
detained pending trial. United States v.
Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, 1408 (9th Cir.
presumption of detention applies in Mr. Scott's
situation, because the Court is required by 18 U.S.C. §
3142(e)(3)(A) to apply the presumption as to both
dangerousness and flight risk when a defendant is charged
with a felony drug offense that with a maximum sentence of
ten years or more. Dkt. 1. The defendant bears the burden of
proffering evidence to overcome the presumption. The
government maintains the burden of persuading the Court by a
preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Scott is a
non-appearance risk, or by clear and convincing evidence that
Mr. Scott is a danger to the community. United States v.
Hir, 517 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2008).
When the defendant offers evidence to rebut the presumption,
that does not mean the presumption is erased; the Court may
consider the presumption as an evidentiary finding that
militates against the defendant's release and weighs the
presumption along with all the factors listed in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(g). Id.
the four factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) permit
this Court to consider the nature of the offense currently
charged, and the evidence of guilt, these factors are
considered only in the context of evaluating the likelihood
that the person will fail to appear or will pose a danger.
United States v. Motamedi, at 1408. Even if a
defendant poses a danger to others or to the community, the
defendant must be released when the Court determines there
would be a “condition or combination of conditions
[that] will reasonably assure. . .the safety of any other
person and the community.” United States v.
Hir, 517 F.3d 1081, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2008).
defendant proffered evidence in this case but has not
overcome the presumption of detention. The government met its
burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that Mr.
Scott presents a serious risk of dangerousness to others and
to the community.
record indicates that Mr. Scott engaged in drug-trafficking
activities involving more than a kilogram of heroin. Dkt. 1.
Court considered the defendant's proffer of evidence that
he has positive relationships with his family, he has
previously worked in construction, and his previous employer
would hire him back. Yet, even with the support of his
friends and family, and his position previously working for a
construction company, the pretrial services report shows that
Mr. Scott has criminal record that includes more than one
conviction for driving while under the influence, and more
than one conviction for domestic violence. These convictions
show that Mr. Scott has not shown an ability to conform his
behavior to the law, he drove while under the influence (one
of those convictions included an accident associated with
that driving), and that he has acted violently in a previous
Government's motion for detention (Dkt. 4) is, for all of
the above reasons, GRANTED.
defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney
General 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 reasonable opportunity for
private consultation with counsel. The defendant shall on
order of a court of the United States or on request of an
attorney for the Government, be delivered to a United States
Marshal for transfer to the ...