United States v. Gonzolo Gonzales

not consider did district court society. The immunity or whether qualified of issues of under color Chang acted Haning and pre- These issues law.

state appeal. adequately for

served im- not sufficient

The evidence under or Shimoda liability on Sunn

pose against them judgment 1983.

section reversed. remanded. attorney’s fees is

The issue in its discretion court abused ‍​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‍district Its fee enhance- multiplier. use

its Supreme recent in accord with is not ment Upon re- cases. and Ninth Circuit Court ALARCON, Before made mand, findings should specific O’SCANNLAIN, Judges. a reason- constitutes respect to what part; AFFIRMED аttorney’s fee. able remanded. part; REVERSED ORDER emergency motion for

Gonzolo Gonzales’ 18, March is denied. On pending trial bond 1988, evidentiary hearing, magis- an after District of California in the Central tratе pending trial on ordered Gonzales detained his release would grounds that he was a community and that danger to the America, UNITED STATES 21, 1988, March Gonzales flight risk. On Plaintiff-Appellee, District of Wash- to the Wеstern was taken 19, 1988, Gonzales ‍​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‍was ington. On GONZALES, on an indictment Gonzolo Washington. On that Defendant-Appellant. District of Western date, that he be magistrate ordered de- No. 88-3149. to 18 U.S.C. pursuant be- tained United States Court danger to the cause he was May Gon- flight risk. On and a order to the detention appealed zales 28, July 1988. Western District court for the district Washington. hearing on

The motion was scheduled 3145(b) requires revocation of deten- motion for the promptly.” tion order “shall be inadvertence, the hear- Through revocation was not motion for ing on the The motion conducted latеr, on Eleven was denied. court. Gonzales filed 13,1988, Eight stay of the trial for a filed an 18, 1988. On the same date set days to given 7 date, the Government for a to the motion respond 1215 emergency contends that motion pending for bond his motion for court’s failure to act on trial is DENIED. for his for 36 violated to revocation pending disposition of the emergency mo- promptly required as have his mоtion heard tion pending for bond trial is DENIED. 3145(b). does Section Section “promptly” ‍​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‍provide nor does it not define a Judge, dissenting. remedy for failure to sanction Under very circumstances timely review. United States v. similar Fernan to (9th presented 813 F.2d dez-Alfonso, by Appellant Gonzales, 1572 Cir. those 1987). circuit decided in United States v. Fernan- (9th dez-Alfonso, Cir.1987), 813 F.2d 1571 Fernandez-Alfonso, In held we provisions the Bail Act delаy thirty-day promptness “violates the 3145(b) impose a requirement strict 3145(b).” requirement Id., of a motion for review of an order entered In Fernandez-Alfonso, we deter- Magistrate imposing a Pre-Trial detention mined that conditional release would be an “shall be promptly,” appropriate remedy for a violation of the and that promptness requirement. says. In Fernandez- section means what it We held Alfonso, we were not faced with in that case that the failure of a district finding by a the district court and two court comply with the fea- magistrates that release of the defendant ture mandates corrective us. danger community. a to the Such is the case before us now. The dis- The district court in trict court has not promptly” “determined Fernandez-Alfonso pоsed determined that the accused a risk of review; Gonzales’ motion for in fact the Thus, contrary Id. to Gonzales’ court any necessity seemed unaware of matter, claim in his brief we did not teaching action or of the of Fer- hold that condition- and, accordingly, paid nandez-Alfonso appropriate al release of a defendant is an attention to that decision. Properly, we remedy “notwithstanding finding[] duty salvage have a what we can of the danger.” contrary it would We believe be principle that the review of a detention Congressional intent аnd the interests of upon order is a matter that must be acted society poses to release an individual who a expedition. danger community. Gonzales was arrested in the Dis- Central person a may appear Release of who trict of California on March on a may go unpunished for trial means that he complaint issued out of the Western Dis- past penalizes bеhavior. This result Washington charging trict of him with con- the district court for its misdeed without spiracy appeared cocaine. He distribute placing society per- at risk. Release of a Mаgistrate Angeles in Los before danger community, son who is a hearing1 after a detention on March 18 however, may result in the commission was ordered detained without bail. He was against persоns. future crimes innocent removed, custody, on March 21 to the We decline to extend Fernandez-Alfonso Washington pursuant Western District of involving finding to a case grand indictment community. jury. On he was on thе only Gonzales seeks re- conditional Magistrate indictment before who Thus, pending lease trial. whether there adopted Angeles the Los detention order are other remedies fоr a district court’s based a Los Pre-Trial Servic- promptly failure to determine a motion for Report. es revocation of a detention order when the present appellаnt counsel for poses danger defendant to the communi- ty is not the de- before this court. served a motion for revocation of pre-removal pending 1. The function of a detention hear- his return to the district where the is, course, ing charge orginated. to determine whether the ar- restee shall be released to bail or summons lengthy peri- over a quantities of coсaine A setting of bail. for the tention possesses a and therefore od of time inquired counsel few commuiíity. hearing might serious how setting clerk wholly dis- up proposal is that was Defendant’s bail tоld that and was expedited, of the court to the seriousness proportionate The district judge. assigned is the This action, although it “noted” and offense no took given the duration of true particularly the motion pendency of country and his ties to the defendant’s provided hearing was No bail origin in Columbia. the motion days after some above, the district day, Except the district as set forth On that filed. had been the 14 nor mentioned Fernandez-Al- neither considered When bail. court denied attention, prescribed the brought § conditions was fonso references to the boiler-plate “distin- that case was Aside from judge concluded and Half- binding. The the FBI/DEA charges not and to hence guishable” and unavailability, the district Way House heavily on the court relied no mean- ad- and also bare conclusions court’s pre-removal detention statutory re- co-defendants of the ingful fact that the consideration verted Finally, of bail be based motions.” that the deniаl 30-plus quirement had filed “some deten- support the upon facts sufficient judge said: meaningful review capable tion and my in mind a conjure up I tried to have this court. reason- that I felt would of сonditions set appearance the defendant’s ably assure appealed to trying done some work trial and have court order. from the district this court as- unable to that and havе been to do not acted the was Apparently my re- I could fulfill myself that sure an order until 13 when at this level community if I were to sponsibility to the granting government the seven issued the defendant. releаse appel- response days in which to file Pending for Bond emergency Motion lant’s contacted a that he had judge stated Trial, application for a along with an in that Half-Way fоund that House but set to had then been ‍​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‍Although the trial go; come and setting the defendant could was not so this court commence on electronic surveil- that he had considered as schеd- The trial did commence advised. in the lance, it was not available but found informed, uled, probably are will and we district, anyhow, he did not consider and a week. conclude within He said that to be effective. such restraint agents Agency and Drug the Enforcement the suggested that because It is now Investigation had Bureau of of the Federal possible. That begun, has no relief is trial custody the defendant accept declined to neglect the untoward not correct. Given Fi- manpower shortage. of their because a mo- attending urgency of such nally, he noted that a co-defendant tion, our decision major quantities of cocaine fugitive; calls for ameliorative still involved; that there was evidence begun. We though the' trial has even purport- in which of recorded conversations inattention allow this record of should not edly appellant had discussed narcotics Accordingly, I justify doing nothing. transactions. ongoing trial and enter a wоuld 29, 1988, the district By order filed June court with remand to the district would motion, finding court denied for that court to conduct clear instruction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. meaningful hearing condition or combination of cоnditions appropriate action not- reasonably appearance and to take assure commenced. withstanding that the trial has defendant and the facts, develop hearing the court finds Such should because conclusions, there merely as to whether convincing evidence that de- clear and conditions, short of de- no reasonable fendant has a dealer of substantial exist been tention, against flight which would assure any person or to the communi- unacceptable I find it that the statu-

ty. ig-

tory mandate of should

nored; accorded of bail by the regulated Bail

the Constitution should be denied to unfa-

Act defendant; and that we should

vored allow helplessly by. Requir- to stand

ourselves

ing the district court now do what it guaran-

should have done before does not

tee that the defendant will be released detention, respect

from for we still must finding pursuant

proper to Rule 52 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ‍​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌​​​‍But by would reaffirm for all

such action us

witness, protections of the Consti- really impor-

tution and of the Bail Act are justice

tant to the administration of and not lightly. judges, taken Courts and own,

including infrequently, need

to be so reminded. FRANCESCHI,

John

Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee,

AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant. 87-6014,

Nos. 87-6034.

United States Court of

Argued and Submitted June

Decided Franceschi, Beach, Cal.,

Ernest Seal J. plaintiff-appellant-cross-appellee. Franz, Helm, Arthur L. Galton & Cal., Angeles, defendant-appellee-cross- appellant.

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Gonzolo Gonzales

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Date Published: Jul 28, 1988

Citation: 852 F.2d 1214

Docket Number: 88-3149

Court Abbreviation: 9th Cir.