U.S. v. West, CR-18-08269-001-PCT-DLR. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20181128900
Visitors: 24
Filed: Nov. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 27, 2018
Summary: ORDER JOHN Z. BOYLE , Magistrate Judge . The defendant appeared in court with counsel. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3148 a pretrial release revocation hearing was conducted after Defendant did not dispute the allegations in the Petition. The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has violated the terms of defendant's previously imposed pretrial release conditions as alleged in the Petition to Revoke. After considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3142(g), the Co
Summary: ORDER JOHN Z. BOYLE , Magistrate Judge . The defendant appeared in court with counsel. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3148 a pretrial release revocation hearing was conducted after Defendant did not dispute the allegations in the Petition. The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has violated the terms of defendant's previously imposed pretrial release conditions as alleged in the Petition to Revoke. After considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3142(g), the Cou..
More
ORDER
JOHN Z. BOYLE, Magistrate Judge.
The defendant appeared in court with counsel. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148 a pretrial release revocation hearing was conducted after Defendant did not dispute the allegations in the Petition. The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has violated the terms of defendant's previously imposed pretrial release conditions as alleged in the Petition to Revoke.
After considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court concludes there are no conditions or combination of conditions which will assure the defendant will not flee or pose a danger to the safety of other persons or the community and that if there were such conditions the defendant is unlikely to abide by such conditions. Notably, Defendant was found in his home while a sever-year-old was also present in the home. Although the juvenile was supervised by another adult, Defendant was explicitly required to have no minors in his residence (in light of the nature of the charges in the case).
IT IS ORDERED that the defendant be detained.
Source: Leagle
