United States v. Ernesto Santos-Flores
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12737
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Defendant Ernesto Santos‑Flores, a Mexican citizen, is charged with felony illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. § 1326) after prior removal and a 2014 conviction for illegal reentry with supervised‑release conditions forbidding reentry.
- Apprehended March 30, 2015 in Arizona after presenting false U.S. identity documents and claiming U.S. citizenship; ICE records showed no authorization to return.
- Magistrate judge ordered detention April 8, 2015; district court affirmed May 26, 2015; Santos‑Flores appealed under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c).
- District court relied on two alternative rationales for detention: (1) likely immigration detention/removal would prevent his appearance at trial, and (2) individualized factors showing voluntary flight risk (violation of supervised release, prior failures to appear, fraudulent IDs, multiple reentries, severity of sentence).
- Ninth Circuit held the district court erred to the extent it ordered detention based on the mere likelihood of ICE detention/removal, but affirmed detention based on the district court’s alternative individualized analysis finding Santos‑Flores a voluntary flight risk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether risk of ICE detention/removal can justify pretrial detention under Bail Reform Act | Government: ICE detainer and likely removal mean no conditions can assure appearance | Santos‑Flores: ICE custody/removal is not a valid basis for denying bail; risk is non‑volitional | Court: Reverses that basis — detention may not be ordered solely because ICE custody/removal might prevent appearance (contrary to §3142(d)) |
| Whether individualized factors support detention as a flight risk | Government: defendant’s supervised‑release violation, false IDs, prior failures to appear, repeated illegal entries, and severity of sentence show flight risk | Santos‑Flores: These factors are common in reentry cases and cannot create a categorical presumption | Court: Affirms — on the individualized §3142(g) analysis, the totality supports detention as a voluntary flight risk |
| Whether alienage or lack of ties to charging district establishes detention | Government: lack of Arizona ties supports detention | Santos‑Flores: Has strong Colorado community/family/employment ties | Court: Community ties in Colorado are relevant but do not overcome other individualized factors supporting detention |
| Whether using removal discretion by ICE undermines Bail Reform protections | Government: discretion to remove may be exercised | Santos‑Flores: Government’s removal discretion cannot trump Bail Reform Act individualized determination | Court: Agrees with Santos‑Flores — prosecution choice to pursue criminal case cannot let removal risk substitute for individualized Bail Reform findings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403 (9th Cir.) (release doubts resolved in favor of defendant; alienage not dispositive)
- United States v. Gebro, 948 F.2d 1118 (9th Cir.) (government bears preponderance burden to show flight risk)
- United States v. Hir, 517 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.) (standard of review: factual findings deferential, ultimate justification reviewed de novo)
- United States v. Townsend, 897 F.2d 989 (9th Cir.) (consideration of offense nature under §3142(g)(1) and community ties)
- Villa‑Anguiano v. Holder, 727 F.3d 873 (9th Cir.) (reinstatement of removal order is discretionary, not automatic)
- Lopez‑Valenzuela v. Arpaio, 770 F.3d 772 (9th Cir.) (categorical bail bars for aliens raise constitutional concerns)
- Trujillo‑Alvarez v. United States, 900 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (D. Or. 2012) (distinguishing voluntary flight risk from involuntary removal; remedies when ICE custody risks undermine prosecution)
- Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) (context on custody and constraint considerations)