Opinion
Case No. 1:03-CR-27 ST
May 6, 2003
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE'S RULING AND ORDER
This matter came before the Court on April 29, 2003, for hearing on the defendant's objection to the Magistrate Judge's ruling and Order of Detention Pending Trial. For the reasons stated by the Court at the hearing and set forth below, the Court DENIES the defendant's Motion.
The defendant is charged in a two-count Indictment with Possession of a Firearm While Subject to a Protective Order, and Possession of a Firearm Following Domestic Violence-related Misdemeanor Conviction.
Chief Magistrate Judge Alba issued an Order of Detention on February 19, 2003. Subsequently, the defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the Magistrate Judge denied. The defendant then made a Motion to Vacate Oral Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration of Detention Order. He subsequently withdrew the Motion to Vacate and filed the instant Motion.
The Court first notes that, pursuant to the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142 et. seq., the presumption is that a defendant be released pending trial, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that a defendant should be detained. In this case, the Court finds, consistent with Magistrate Judge Alba's findings, that there exists clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is a danger to a person or to the community, and should be detained. Id.
In determining whether to detain a defendant, the Bail Reform Act directs a court to consider, inter alia, the nature of the instant charged offense, the weight of the evidence against the defendant, and the defendant's history and characteristics. 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (g). The statute also directs consideration of a defendant's past conduct and criminal history. Id. The Court finds that those factors all weigh in favor of detention of the defendant in this case.
The evidence at the hearing established that the defendant has had four separate protective orders arising out of domestic violence situations, by four different women. Three of those protective orders are still active. The defendant was convicted of domestic violence in 2002. The Court is concerned about the safety of the women who found it necessary to obtain the protective orders and is alarmed by the continued pattern of violence on the part of the defendant.
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge's detention order de novo, the Court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is a danger to a person or to the community and should be detained pending trial. Therefore, the defendant's objection to the Magistrate Judge's ruling and order is DENIED, and the Order of Detention Pending Trial remains in effect.
SO ORDERED.