Case Information
*1 Case: 3:19-cr-00169-TMR Doc #: 28 Filed: 09/27/19 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 100 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
United States of America
Plaintiff Case No. 3:19-mj-498
-vs- Judge Thomas M. Rose Ethan Kollie
Defendant
ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION/APPEAL (Doc. 18)
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to the Defendant’s Appeal (Doc. 18) of the denial of his Motion to Revoke or Amend the Magistrate Judge’s Order of Pretrial Detention (Doc. 16). The Court having conducted a de novo review of the record in this matter, including a transcript of the detention hearings held before Magistrate Judge Michael Newman, DENIES the Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 15)/Appeal (Doc. 18).
An individual ordered detained by a magistrate judge may file a motion to revoke or amend the detention order in the district court under 18 U.S.C. 3145 (b). The district court must “promptly” review the magistrate judge’s order committing the defendant to detention. In reviewing such an order, the Court gives no deference to the magistrate judge’s factual findings, but reviews them de novo . The Court is not required to hold a new evidentiary hearing.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 46 provides that 18 U.S.C. 3142 governs a defendant’s detention before trial. Section 3142 provides that a person awaiting trial should be detained if the judicial officer finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person or the safety of any other person and the community.
Here the Government initially moved to detain the Defendant on August 9, 2019, alleging that he was a flight risk and a danger to the community. On August 15, 2019 the Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:19-cr-00169-TMR Doc #: 28 Filed: 09/27/19 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 101 granted the Government’s Motion. Defendant filed, on August 23, 2019, a Motion for the Revocation of the Detention Order (Doc. 15). The Magistrate Judge, considering the filing a motion to reconsider, denied said motion. Defendant has now filed what has been captioned an “Appeal” which this Court will consider a Motion to Revoke or Amend Original Detention Order (Doc. 18) as provided by 18 U.S.C. 3145(b).
Magistrate Judge Newman, based upon testimony and argument in two hearings found that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant and the safety of any other person and the community. Upon review of the Government’s and Defendant’s memorandum of law and the transcript of the proceedings before Magistrate Judge Newman at that time, this Court affirms the Magistrate Judge’s findings and order.
Combined with the allegations and circumstances surrounding the charges against the Defendant, including the possession of numerous firearms, his admitted regular drug use of marijuana and psychedelic mushrooms which he grew in his residence as well as concerns as to the Defendant’s mental health, this Court finds that the Defendant is a danger to himself and others. The Court also finds that the proposed alternatives to detention do not, as proposed, adequately address and mitigate said danger.
In conclusion, having conducted a de novo review of the record, including a review of the transcript of the detention hearing before Magistrate Judge Newman, the Court finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community should Defendant be released. Therefore, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s motion/appeal (Doc. 18). IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 27, 2019 *s/Thomas M. Rose
_________________________________ Thomas M. Rose, Judge United States District Court