When a magistrate judge's pretrial detention order is contested, a district court considers the matter de novo under the guidelines set forth by 18 U.S.C. § 3142. See United States v. Alonso, 832 F.Supp. 503, 504 (D.P.R. 1993). A court may reconsider a detention order at any time prior to trial if the judicial officer finds there to be information previously unavailable and finds that the new information bears on the determination of flight risk and danger to society.
Taking into consideration all of the evidence, including newly proffered evidence of Defendant's criminal history, the Magistrate Judge of this Court agreed with the Government's recommendation, and ordered that Defendant be held pending trial on the underlying matter. At the cutset, this Court notes that its role in the review of a Magistrate Judge's pretrial detention determination is de novo.United States v. Alonso, 832 F. Supp. 503, 504 (D.P.R. 1993); see also United States v. Tortora, 922 F.2d 880, 883 n. 4 (1st Cir. 1990). While this Court must independently review the evidence, a de novo detention hearing is not required, Alonso, 832 F. Supp. at 504, and none has been requested here.
Though the charged offense is serious, courts also consider the defendant's role in the criminal venture. SeeUnited States v Alonso, 832 F.Supp. 503, 507 (D.P.R. 1993); United States v. Beeks, 2005 WL 1940014, at *4 (S.D. Ind. 2005). Defendant's alleged role was limited to driving the three other perpetrators to the location of the carjacking.
Furthermore, courts consider what role the defendant played in the criminal venture. SeeUnited States v Alonso, 832 F.Supp. 503, 507 (D.P.R. 1993); United States v. Beeks, 2005 WL 1940014, at *4 (S.D. Ind. 2005). The special agent's affidavit states that Mr. Pepin-Amarante and Mr. Montero-Perez are allegedly “leaders of the Transnational Criminal Organization that have successfully coordinated the transportation and importation of narcotics into Puerto Rico for approximately six years.”
Additionally, Defendant was allegedly the leader of this drug trafficking scheme, which is a factor that courts consider as well. SeeUnited States v Alonso, 832 F.Supp. 503, at 507 (D.P.R. 1993); United States v. Beeks, 2005 WL 1940014, at *4 (S.D. Ind. 2005).
Accordingly, a second detention hearing is not necessary. See United States v. Gaviria, 828 F.2d 667, 670 (11th Cir.1987); United States v. Watkins, No. 13-02-KSF, 2013 WL 614252, at * 4 (E.D. Ky. 2013); United States v. Jones, No. 12:CR-105, 2012 WL 6737784, at * 1, n.1 (D. Conn. 2012); United States v. Burks, 141 F.Supp.2d 1283, 1285 (D. Kan. 2001); United States v. Alonso, 832 F.Supp. 503, 504 (D. Puerto Rico 1993); United States v. Bergner, 800 F.Supp. 659, 661 (N.D.Ind.1992).
Accordingly, a second detention hearing is not necessary. See United States v. Gaviria, 828 F.2d 667, 670 (11th Cir. 1987); United States v. Jones, No. 12:CR-105, 2012 WL 6737784, at * 1, n.1 (D. Conn. 2012); United States v. Burks, 141 F.Supp.2d 1283, 1285 (D. Kan. 2001); United States v. Alonso, 832 F.Supp. 503, 504 (D. Puerto Rico 1993); United States v. Bergner, 800 F.Supp. 659, 661 (N.D. Ind. 1992). In resolving this motion, the Court will rely on the indictment, the Pretrial Services Report prepared by the United States Probation Office (DE 19), the transcript of the detention hearing (DE 25), and the response filed by the United States following the detention hearing (DE 28).
Accordingly, a second detention hearing is not necessary. See United States v. Gaviria, 828 F.2d 667, 670 (11th Cir. 1987); United States v. Jones, No. 12:CR-105, 2012 WL 6737784, at * 1, n.1 (D. Conn. 2012); United States v. Burks, 141 F. Supp. 2d 1283, 1285 (D. Kan. 2001);United States v. Alonso, 832 F. Supp. 503, 504 (D. Puerto Rico 1993); United States v. Bergner, 800 F. Supp. 659, 661 (N.D. Ind. 1992). At the time of the detention hearing and the magistrate judge's detention order, the only charge against Smith was contained in the criminal complaint for conspiracy to possess fentanyl and cocaine with distributive intent.
Accordingly, a second detention hearing is not necessary. See United States v. Gaviria, 828 F.2d 667, 670 (11th Cir.1987); United States v. Watkins , No. 13-02-KSF, 2013 WL 614252, at * 4 (E.D. Ky. 2013); United States v. Jones, No. 12:CR-105, 2012 WL 6737784, at * 1, n.1 (D. Conn. 2012); United States v. Burks, 141 F. Supp. 2d 1283, 1285 (D. Kan. 2001);United States v. Alonso, 832 F.Supp. 503, 504 (D. Puerto Rico 1993); United States v. Bergner, 800 F. Supp. 659, 661 (N.D.Ind.1992). In resolving this motion, the Court will rely on the record presented to the magistrate judge: an audio recording of the detention hearing and the Pretrial Services Report.
Accordingly, a second detention hearing is not necessary. See United States v. Gaviria, 828 F.2d 667, 670 (11th Cir.1987); United States v. Jones, No. 12:CR-105, 2012 WL 6737784, at * 1, n.1 (D. Conn. 2012); United States v. Burks, 141 F. Supp. 2d 1283, 1285 (D. Kan. 2001);United States v. Alonso, 832 F. Supp. 503, 504 (D. Puerto Rico 1993); United States v. Bergner, 800 F. Supp. 659, 661 (N.D.Ind.1992). In resolving this motion, the Court will rely on the affidavits filed in support of the criminal complaints in this matter, the indictment, the Pretrial Services Report prepared by the U.S. Probation Office, the transcript of the detention hearing, and the pleadings submitted by the parties.