United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division
BRIAN
J. STRETCH, United States Attorney PHILIP GUENTERT, Acting
Chief, Criminal Division CHRISTINA McCALL, Assistant United
States Attorney, Attorneys for the United States of America.
[PROPOSED] ORDER OF
DETENTION
HONORABLE KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge.
The
parties appeared before the Honorable Kandis A. Westmore on
August 3, 2016 for a detention hearing on a supervised
release violation petition, following the arrest of
defendant, Lloyd Harris. At the hearing, the government moved
to detain Harris, arguing that Harris could not meet his
burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that
he is not a risk of non-appearance or a danger to another
person. Both parties proffered information for the Court to
consider in reaching a decision on the detention motion. The
United States Probation Officer also recommended that Harris
be detained, due to the danger he poses to others, and based
upon Harris’ long history of violating the conditions
of his supervised release.
Harris
opposed the detention motion and asked to be released from
custody. Harris argued that the two bonds that a bail bond
agent posted on his behalf in Contra Costa County and Solano
County, which collectively totaled almost a million dollars
(the defense proffered that the larger bond was secured by
property that Harris’s family owns), would provide a
strong incentive to comply with rules imposed by this Court,
and should mitigate any danger of criminal conduct while
awaiting trial in the state court matters. Those state court
cases appear to relate to more than one count of felony
evasion of law enforcement officers, and more than one count
of assault with a deadly weapon, arising out of separate
arrests. Harris’s attorney argued that he was facing
potentially a very large sentence in at least one of the
state court cases, which would also provide an incentive not
to commit crimes while awaiting trial in those cases. Harris
expressed an interest in enrolling in a Delancey Street
program, which he believes will ultimately help him in his
pending criminal cases in Contra Costa and Solano Counties.
In the
supervised release revocation context, the burden is on the
defendant seeking release to “establish[] by clear and
convincing evidence that the [defendant] will not flee or
pose a danger to any other person or to the community.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(a)(6). See
also 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a); Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 46(c) and (d); United States v. Loya, 23
F.3d 1529 (9th Cir. 1994).
Upon
consideration of the parties’ proffers and information
provided by the United States Probation Officer, as well as
Court records in the case against Harris, the Court finds
that Harris has not met his burden to provide clear and
convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk or that he
does not pose a danger to any other person or the community.
The Court therefore orders Harris detained, but the detention
decision is made without prejudice. If Harris is able to
suggest conditions that could mitigate the danger that he
poses to the community, he may re-raise the detention issue
with the Court.
In
considering the Court’s record and the information
presented at the hearing, the Court finds that Harris did not
meet his burden to provide clear and convincing evidence that
he is not a flight risk or a danger at this time because: (1)
this petition alleges that Harris drove through residential
areas reaching speeds of approximately 80 to 90 miles per
hour and narrowly avoided colliding with other vehicles by
veering into oncoming traffic and fled on foot when he was
eventually cornered by multiple pursuing police officers and
engaged in a physical altercation with uniformed officers;
(2) this petition alleges that Harris failed to report his
arrest for being under the influence of methamphetamine to
his probation officer; (3) this petition alleges that Harris
walked away from a drug treatment facility the same day he
arrived, in violation of the condition that he complete a
state drug program; (4) Harris had many prior petitions to
revoke or modify supervised release dating back to 2005,
alleging a variety of violations from failing to follow
instructions to multiple new criminal violations to leaving
the district without permission to failing to report a change
in residence; (5) Harris has been in state pre-trial custody
for the past three years and was arrested for “prisoner
possessing a weapon” while in jail, although that
charge appears to have been not pursued or dismissed and
Harris proffers that it related to a rolled-up magazine; and
(6) Harris’s criminal convictions include: assault with
a deadly weapon (misdemeanor) in 1996; grand theft from a
person (felony) in 1997; receiving stolen property (felony)
and prohibited person owning / possessing ammunition (felony)
in 1998; reckless driving (misdemeanor) in 2001; driving
under the influence of alcohol (misdemeanor) in 2004; and
multiple felony convictions for what appear to be attempted
carjacking and felony hit and run and felony evasion of a
peace officer in 2011.
The
defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the Attorney
General for confinement in a corrections facility. The
defendant must be afforded reasonable opportunity for private
consultation with his counsel. On order of a court of the
United States or on request of any attorney for the
government, the person in charge of the corrections facility
in which the defendant is confined shall deliver the
defendant to ...