United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER GRANTING RELEASE WITH CONDITIONS
A. GOLDSMITH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Baltazar-Martinez appeals a magistrate judge's order of
detention. After considering the parties' arguments and
submissions, the Court orders Baltazar-Martinez's release
17, 2019, Baltazar-Martinez was arrested on a criminal
complaint charging him with a single violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1326(a), illegal re-entry. See generally
Compl. (Dkt. 1). At the initial appearance, the Government
requested detention, citing, in part, the detainer lodged by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”).
counsel filed an appearance the next day. Prior to the June
19, 2019 hearing, Baltazar-Martinez filed a motion with the
magistrate judge arguing that a detention hearing was not
proper where the Government has not and cannot satisfy the
requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). Nonetheless, the
magistrate judge held a detention hearing, and concluded that
Baltazar-Martinez was a serious flight risk and ordered his
detention (Dkt. 10). Baltazar-Martinez appealed.
18 U.S.C. § 3142 governs the release or detention of a
federal defendant pending trial. In general, “[t]he
default position of the law . . . is that a defendant should
be released pending trial.” United States v.
Stone, 608 F.3d 939, 945 (6th Cir. 2010). However, a
defendant may be detained pending trial if a judge
“finds that no condition or combination of conditions
will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as
required and the safety of any other person and the
community[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e).
determining whether no condition or combination of conditions
will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant and
the safety of the community, the Court must take into account
the available information concerning: (i) the nature and
circumstances of the offense charged; (ii) the weight of the
evidence against the defendant; (iii) the history and
characteristics of the defendant; and (iv) the nature and
seriousness of the danger posed by the defendant's
release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). The Government bears the
burden of persuasion and must prove risk of flight by a
preponderance of the evidence. United States v.
Hinton, 113 Fed.Appx. 76, 77 (6th Cir. 2004); United
States v. Namer, 238 F.3d 425 (6th Cir. 2000) (table).
The Government does not argue that Baltazar-Martinez is a
danger to the community.
makes two arguments in support of his release. First, he
argues that because the Government could not have satisfied
the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), no detention
hearing should have occurred in the first place. Second,
Baltazar-Martinez argues that there are conditions that would
reasonably assure his future appearance in court. The Court
will take each argument in turn.
The Government Has Satisfied § 3142(f)'s
argues that no detention hearing should have been conducted
in the first place, because the Government cannot satisfy any
of the requirements of § 3142(f). This argument is a
3142(f) requires, in part, a judicial officer to hold a
hearing to determine whether any condition or combination of
conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the
defendant in court. Section 3142(f) has two sections, the
first of which is inapplicable to the present case. Section
3142(f)(1) enumerates cases in which a rebuttable presumption
arises in which no condition or combination of conditions
will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant. 18
U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1) & (e). Baltazar-Martinez's
case does not fall under any of the § 3142(f)(1)
provisions. Here, the Government moved for
Baltazar-Martinez's detention under the second section of
§ 3142(f), specifically § 3142(f)(2)(A). That
provision requires a judicial officer to hold a detention
hearing “upon motion of the attorney for the Government
or upon the judicial officer's own motion, in a case that
involves - a serious risk that such person will flee.”
is no question that the magistrate judge followed the
requirements of § 3142(f). The Government moved for
detention arguing that Baltazar-Martinez is a serious flight
risk. The magistrate judge subsequently held a detention
hearing and made a flight-risk determination. This Court
agrees with the magistrate judge that the Government is not
required to make an evidentiary proffer before a detention
hearing can even be set, and ...