APPLICATION FOR STAY OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RELEASE ORDER PENDING HEARING ON THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR REVOCATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

ANTHONY W. ISHII, District Judge.

The United States of America, plaintiff herein, respectfully files this application for stay of U.S. Magistrate Judge Charles Eick's order in the Central District of California, setting conditions of release for the above-named defendant, pending hearing on the government's motion to revoke such orders. This Court is the only court which may consider the motion to revoke the release order of Magistrate Judge Stevenson. 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a).

On October 14, 2015, the defendant initially appeared in the Central District of California on an arrest warrant authorized by U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe in connection with the indictment filed in this case. The defendant is charged in our district with conspiring to manufacture, to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute controlled substances and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances.

While expressing a concern for the risk of danger posed by the defendant, Magistrate Judge Eick nonetheless ordered the defendant released on a $25,000 unsecured bond. Magistrate Judge Eick has ordered the defendant detained until 4 p.m., Friday, October 16, to allow the government to seek a stay in this Court. The government will be moving to revoke the release order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145. The basis for this motion will be that the defendant is a flight risk and danger to the community, and no condition or combination of conditions are adequate to assure the safety of the community or the defendant's appearance. This motion is not yet set for hearing.

The government now moves to stay the order of Magistrate Judge Eick, pending this Court's disposition of the motion for revocation of release order. This Court has the authority to authorize the stay. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), a defendant may be detained pending completion of the detention hearing. Congress expressly identified a clear public interest in permitting review of a magistrate's release order pursuant to Section 3145. Requiring release pending review by the district court would frustrate the very purpose of this review. United States v. Huckabay, 707 F.Supp. 35, 37 (D.Me. 1989). Subsection 3145(a) mandates a prompt review of the motion to revoke, thereby providing a reasonable safeguard against unduly extended detention during review.

As the Huckabay court explained, there is nothing in the statute or in its legislative history to suggest that Congress intended to deny the district court a reasonable opportunity to inform and exercise its discretion, which necessarily contemplates a hearing and/or de novo consideration of the record presented before the magistrate. Id. at 37.

Section 3142(f) incorporates the important Congressional aim of assuring meaningful review of release orders, inasmuch as subsection 3142(f) permits detention "pending completion of the [detention] hearing," which reasonably includes a limited period for prompt review of the magistrate's release order under subsection 3145(a). Id.

The authority for staying the release order is also found within the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3142(d) which provides for temporary detention pending the revocation of an order for conditional release. United States v. Geerts, 629 F.Supp. 830, 831 (E.D.Pa. 1985).

The government respectfully requests that the Court now stay Magistrate Judge Eick's order of release pending this Court's disposition of the motion for revocation of release order.

ORDER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a) and upon consideration of the government's application for a stay of U.S. Magistrate Judge Eick's release order of the above-named defendant,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT said release order be stayed pending resolution in this Court of the government's appeal of the release order.