United States v. Jordan
2:25-cr-00105
| W.D. Wash. | Jul 3, 2025Background
- Larissa Jordan was indicted on federal charges of production of child pornography related to images and videos of her minor child that she allegedly created and shared with others via social media.
- Evidence indicated additional alleged conduct by Jordan, including soliciting child sexual abuse material (CSAM), engaging in explicit communications about child exploitation, and possible involvement in bestiality.
- Jordan was initially arrested on state charges in Snohomish County and subsequently transferred to federal custody. Her state charges were dismissed after the federal indictment.
- At her federal detention hearing, Jordan proposed release under strict conditions including residing with her fiancé and electronic monitoring, and Pretrial Services recommended release with numerous restrictions.
- The magistrate judge denied release, finding no condition could reasonably assure community safety, and Jordan sought review and revocation of the detention order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pretrial Detention | Jordan challenged detention, proposing strict supervised release conditions. | Government argued no condition could assure public safety due to Jordan’s conduct. | Court found detention warranted; no conditions would reasonably assure safety. |
| Rebuttable Presumption | Jordan claimed to rebut detention presumption by providing evidence of community ties and proposing robust release conditions. | Government maintained presumption remains and risks are too high. | Court assumed presumption rebutted but found evidence still favored detention. |
| Danger to Community | Asserted special conditions and monitoring would mitigate risks. | Argued that Jordan’s history, conduct, and use of technology made risk unmanageable. | Court agreed with Government; risk cannot be mitigated by proposed conditions. |
| Sufficiency of Conditions | Argued conditions like electronic monitoring, device bans, and supervised residence would be effective. | Asserted these would be insufficient to control access to minors and internet. | Court found conditions inadequate, citing persistent access risks. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (liberty is the norm and pretrial detention is a limited exception)
- United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403 (9th Cir. 1985) (weight of the evidence is the least important detention factor; no pretrial determination of guilt)
- United States v. Hir, 517 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2008) (describes operation of presumption and burden of proof in detention proceedings)
- United States v. Koenig, 912 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir. 1990) (district court review of magistrate judge detention order is de novo)
- United States v. Gebro, 948 F.2d 1118 (9th Cir. 1991) (sets out burdens on government for danger and flight risk in detention)