United States v. Workman, 680 F. App'x 699

Andrew Workman was indicted for receipt and possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2) & (a)(5)(B).
A magistrate judge ordered pretrial detention under the statutory rebuttable presumption, finding risk of nonappearance based on the charges, lack of community ties, unstable housing, and prior suicide attempts/ideation.
Workman moved to suppress evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds; the district court granted suppression and the government appealed.
Workman moved for release pending the government’s appeal, arguing the suppression undercuts the detention presumption and proposed conditions (halfway house, mandated mental-health treatment) would mitigate flight/suicide risk.
The district court denied release, concluding the facts supporting detention had not changed, that it could consider the suppressed evidence when weighing the case for detention, and that suicide risk was properly considered.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed the detention decision (mixed law/fact de novo; factual findings for clear error) and affirmed the district court’s denial of release.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by asking if conditions would "eliminate" flight risk instead of whether they would "reasonably assure" appearance under § 3142	Workman: court used wrong legal standard—must ask whether conditions "reasonably assure" appearance	Government: magistrate’s findings still support detention; district court applied § 3142 contextually	Court: no legal error; district court’s discussion was consistent with § 3142 because facts had not changed and it considered whether conditions would sufficiently mitigate risk
Whether past suicide attempts/ideation are improper to consider in assessing risk of nonappearance	Workman: suicidal ideation is not a § 3142 factor and should not count toward flight-risk assessment	Government: suicide attempts are relevant because suicide would prevent appearance and bear on nonappearance risk	Court: suicide attempts/ideation may be considered as part of the risk-of-nonappearance analysis; district court did not clearly err in relying on them
Whether the district court may consider suppressed evidence when evaluating release pending appeal	Workman: suppression removes weight of evidence, shifting presumption toward release	Government: court may consider suppressed evidence while appeal is pending	Court: district court permissibly considered the suppressed evidence’s weight pending appeal and did not clearly err in its balancing

United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610 (10th Cir.) (standards of review for pretrial detention determinations)
United States v. Gilgert, 314 F.3d 506 (10th Cir.) (clear-error standard explanation and deference to district court factfinding)
United States v. Stricklin, 932 F.2d 1353 (10th Cir.) (defendant bears burden to produce evidence to rebut detention presumption; government retains burden of persuasion on flight/danger)
United States v. Cody, 498 F.3d 582 (6th Cir.) (suicide can be treated as a form of flight for nonappearance analysis)
United States v. Seminole Nation of Okla., 321 F.3d 939 (10th Cir.) (failure to brief an issue on appeal deemed abandonment)