Filed: Sep. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 18, 2019
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY , Chief District Judge . Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Travel for Family Vacation. (ECF No. 49). The Government has filed a response. (ECF No. 51). The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration. Defendant is currently on pretrial release. As a condition of his pretrial release, Defendant's travel is restricted to Western District of Arkansas; London Pretrial Division in Eastern District of Kentucky; and Bowie County, Texas. Other travel is allowed wi
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY , Chief District Judge . Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Travel for Family Vacation. (ECF No. 49). The Government has filed a response. (ECF No. 51). The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration. Defendant is currently on pretrial release. As a condition of his pretrial release, Defendant's travel is restricted to Western District of Arkansas; London Pretrial Division in Eastern District of Kentucky; and Bowie County, Texas. Other travel is allowed wit..
More
ORDER
SUSAN O. HICKEY, Chief District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Travel for Family Vacation. (ECF No. 49). The Government has filed a response. (ECF No. 51). The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration.
Defendant is currently on pretrial release. As a condition of his pretrial release, Defendant's travel is restricted to Western District of Arkansas; London Pretrial Division in Eastern District of Kentucky; and Bowie County, Texas. Other travel is allowed with permission from United States Probation Office ("Probation").
Defendant filed the instant motion on September 18, 2019, requesting permission to travel for a family vacation. If allowed, Defendant states that he would travel from Kentucky to the Bonne Terre, Missouri Racetrack, leaving September 19, 2019, and returning September 22, 2019. Defendant further states that he contacted Probation, and they informed him they needed a court order to allow him to travel.1 The Government has filed a response in opposition to Defendant's motion, arguing that any out-of-state trip would limit Probation's ability to supervise Defendant. The Government further contends that filing the instant motion the day before the proposed travel is to begin has left the Court and Probation with insufficient time to investigate the environment of the proposed travel destination.
Upon consideration, the Court finds that Defendant cannot be properly supervised while traveling out-of-state for an extended period of time. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Travel for Family Vacation (ECF No. 49) is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.