United States v. Enix
209 F. Supp. 3d 557
| W.D.N.Y. | 2016Background
- Defendant Timothy Enix (aka "Blaze"), Regional President of the Kingsmen Motorcycle Club (KMC) in Florida and Tennessee, is charged in a 46-count Second Superseding Indictment including RICO conspiracy and two § 924(c) firearm counts; he faces very lengthy potential sentences.
- Magistrate Judge Lammens ordered Enix detained after a Florida detention hearing; Enix moved for revocation of that order under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b).
- The district court conducted de novo review over multiple hearings, receiving government proffers, FBI testimony, numerous exhibits (including Facebook posts and phone-record analysis), and Enix’s live testimony.
- Key facts: Enix joined KMC in 2012, served in leadership roles, administered KMC Facebook pages, and communicated frequently with KMC President David Pirk; government alleges chain-of-command involvement in violent acts but offers limited direct evidence tying Enix to specific violent acts.
- The government relied heavily on proffered/cooperator statements, pen-register/toll data, and Facebook posts; Enix testified credibly and denied participation in violent acts, agreed to many restrictive release conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Government's Argument | Enix's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the magistrate judge's detention order should be revoked under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b) | Magistrate's detention was appropriate given the charges, presumption arising from drug/§924 counts, and danger/flight risks | Enix rebutted the presumption through testimony, ties, lack of criminal history, and contested quality of government proffers | Revocation granted: district court ordered release on strict conditions after de novo review |
| Application and effect of the § 3142(e)(3) rebuttable presumption | Indictment (drug ≥10 years and §924 counts) triggers presumption that no conditions will assure safety/appearance | Enix produced evidence to rebut the presumption (limited overt acts attributed to him, employment/family ties, credible testimony) | Court found Enix met burden of production; presumption remains but is a factor — did not by itself require detention |
| Whether government proved dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence | Government relied on leadership role, chain-of-command theory, Facebook posts, cooperator proffers, and phone contacts to show Enix could direct or facilitate violence or witness tampering | Enix argued posts were bluster, evidence circumstantial, lack of wiretaps/surveillance tying him to violent acts, and no direct evidence he ordered or committed violence | Court: government failed to prove dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence; reasonable conditions can mitigate risks |
| Whether Enix is a flight risk and whether conditions can assure appearance | Government argued limited local ties and access to resources support risk of flight | Enix stressed age, lifelong employment, family and caretaking ties, lack of prior convictions, and willingness to post substantial secured bond and submit to supervision | Court found by preponderance that Enix is a flight risk but that conditions (including $500,000 secured bond, third-party custodian, home detention/electronic monitoring, travel limits, no contact with KMC/co-defendants) will reasonably assure appearance |
Key Cases Cited
- Sabhnani v. United States, 493 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007) (limited group of offenders may be denied bail; guidance on detention analyses)
- Chimurenga v. United States, 760 F.2d 400 (2d Cir. 1985) (danger standard and congressional purpose for detention of particularly dangerous defendants)
- Mercedes v. United States, 254 F.3d 433 (2d Cir. 2001) (defendant has burden of production to rebut presumption; presumption remains a factor)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 950 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1991) (defendant must introduce some evidence to rebut presumption; government must prove dangerousness)
- Ciccone v. United States, 312 F.3d 535 (2d Cir. 2002) (leadership role in violent RICO enterprise can support detention; fact-intensive inquiry)
- Colombo v. United States, 777 F.2d 96 (2d Cir. 1985) (leadership and direction of violent enterprise supported detention)
- Salerno v. United States, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (upholding pretrial detention statute where government shows danger to community)
- Leon v. United States, 766 F.2d 77 (2d Cir. 1985) (district court must conduct independent de novo review of magistrate detention findings)