Filed: Aug. 29, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 29, 2013
Summary: ORDER E. CLIFTON KNOWLES, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court upon Defendant's "Motion to Amend the Conditions of Pre-trial Release." Docket No. 3185. The Government has filed a Response in opposition to the Motion. Docket No. 3188. In the Motion, Defendant states that he works for a car selling business buying cars over the Internet. For most of those cars, he is required to go to the car dealerships to inspect the vehicles physically. His current conditions of release, howeve
Summary: ORDER E. CLIFTON KNOWLES, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court upon Defendant's "Motion to Amend the Conditions of Pre-trial Release." Docket No. 3185. The Government has filed a Response in opposition to the Motion. Docket No. 3188. In the Motion, Defendant states that he works for a car selling business buying cars over the Internet. For most of those cars, he is required to go to the car dealerships to inspect the vehicles physically. His current conditions of release, however..
More
ORDER
E. CLIFTON KNOWLES, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant's "Motion to Amend the Conditions of Pre-trial Release." Docket No. 3185. The Government has filed a Response in opposition to the Motion. Docket No. 3188.
In the Motion, Defendant states that he works for a car selling business buying cars over the Internet. For most of those cars, he is required to go to the car dealerships to inspect the vehicles physically. His current conditions of release, however, provide that he is not able to leave the Middle District of Tennessee.1 He seeks an Order from the Court allowing him to travel to areas outside the Middle District of Tennessee, for business purposes, particularly to the states of Georgia, Kentucky, and Alabama. Defendant points out that he currently wears a GPS monitoring device. He further offers to provide his Probation Officer 24 hours notice of his travel when he intends to leave the Middle District of Tennessee on a business trip.
The Government essentially argues that Defendant has failed to set forth any change of circumstances that have occurred since he was released. The Government states that his being employed as discussed in the Motion apparently posed no previous problems for his employer when the travel restrictions were in place.
The Court sought input from the Pretrial Services Office concerning the instant Motion. The Pretrial Services Office advised that they were not opposed to the Court's granting the modifications, provided that Defendant provide them with at least 24 hours notice prior to travel, and that Defendant's 11:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. curfew remain in place.
For the foregoing reasons, the condition imposed in the previous "Order Setting Conditions of Release" (Docket No. 3055) that Defendant's "Travel is restricted to the Middle District of Tennessee and the state of Minnesota" is modified as follows:
Defendant's travel is restricted to the Middle District of Tennessee and the state of Minnesota, except that Defendant may travel on business purposes to areas outside the Middle District of Tennessee and the state of Minnesota on the condition that he provide the Pretrial Services Office with at least 24 hours notice prior to travel.
All other provisions of the Order Setting Conditions of Release shall remain in place, except as may have been modified by subsequent Orders of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
