United States District Court, D. Minnesota
M. Hollenhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, for plaintiff.
C. Ede, Assistant Federal Defender, FEDERAL DEFENDER'S
OFFICE, for defendant.
Patrick J. Schiltz United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on the government's motion,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a)(1), to revoke Magistrate
Judge Steven E. Rau's release order and to detain
defendant Jason Moe until his revocation hearing (which is
scheduled for March 15, 2017).
18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a)(6),
Moe must be detained unless he can prove, by clear and
convincing evidence, that he will not flee and that he will
not pose a danger to the community. The Court finds that Moe
has not met his burden. The Court therefore revokes
Magistrate Judge Rau's order of release and orders that
Moe be detained until his revocation hearing.
compiling a long juvenile and adult criminal record-including
three convictions or adjudications for assault, two for
burglary, and four for theft-Moe was first convicted of
dealing methamphetamine in 2003 and was sentenced to 60
months in prison. Less than six months after being released
from prison-and while he was on probation-Moe again started
dealing methamphetamine, this time in very large quantities.
He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine
in February 2009, and he was sentenced to 108 months in
released from custody on October 30, 2015, and jurisdiction
over his case was transferred to this District on March 25,
2016. At least for the past six months, Moe has done very
poorly on supervised release.
2016, Moe's probation officer learned that Moe had
changed his residence without notifying-much less getting the
approval of-the probation officer. And, according to the
probation officer, the probation office does not even have a
current address for Moe.
August 2016, Moe essentially decided that he would no longer
comply with drug testing. He missed drug tests on August 4,
2016, September 22, 2016, November 18, 2016, December 22,
2016, and January 13, 2017. In addition, Moe has not been in
compliance with the code-a-phone testing program since
December 17, 2016.
now before the Court because, on January 23, 2017, he was
stopped after leaving a liquor store (even though he was
forbidden by the terms of his supervised release to drink
alcohol), and police found over 10 grams of methamphetamine
and over $2000 in cash in his pockets (even though he was
forbidden by the terms of his supervised release to possess
drugs and he was unemployed). At the time of his arrest, Moe
was-of course-on supervised release, and it had been a little
over a year since he had been released from prison after his
last conviction for dealing methamphetamine. Under the
circumstances, the Court cannot find that Moe has
established, by clear and convincing evidence, that he will
not flee and that he is not a danger to the community.
as to Moe's risk of flight: At this point, it appears
likely that Moe is going to be found to have committed
multiple violations of the terms of his supervised release,
that his supervised release will be revoked, and that he will
be sentenced to serve another prison term. And, of course,
Moe may face additional punishment from the state. Moe thus
has a strong incentive to flee.
indication that a defendant is not likely to flee is that he
has complied with the terms of his supervised release. But
Moe has been defying the terms of his supervised release for
about six months now, and, at the time of his arrest, his
probation officer did not even know where he was living.
Although the question is close, the Court cannot find, by
clear and convincing evidence, that Moe is not a flight risk.
more pressing concern for the Court is that Moe has failed to
prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that no condition or
combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety
of the community in the event that Moe is released from
custody. Moe has a long criminal record, including multiple
adjudications or convictions for assault, burglary, theft,
and drug possession or distribution. He has twice served long
prison terms for dealing methamphetamine-and, while he was on
federal supervised release, he was arrested with a
distribution quantity of methamphetamine and over $2000 in
his pockets (despite being unemployed). There is strong
reason to believe that he has reverted to his old ways,
putting the community at significant risk.
if Moe were to be released, the only way to protect the
public would be to impose terms of supervised release. But,
as the Court already described, Moe has proven himself
unwilling to obey the terms of supervised release. The Court
has no confidence in Moe's willingness to follow any
conditions of release and thus no confidence in the probation
office's ability to monitor his ...