Filed: Sep. 10, 2013
Latest Update: Sep. 10, 2013
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REVOCATION OF RELEASE ORDER (Docket No. 10) SARAH EVANS BARKER, District Judge. Now before the Court is the Government's Motion for Revocation of Release Order objecting to and seeking reversal of the release order issued by Magistrate Judge Lynch permitting the pretrial release of Defendant pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3142(f). The Court, having conducted a de novo review of the evidence submitted at the September 5, 2013, hearing before the Magistrate Judge and an ind
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REVOCATION OF RELEASE ORDER (Docket No. 10) SARAH EVANS BARKER, District Judge. Now before the Court is the Government's Motion for Revocation of Release Order objecting to and seeking reversal of the release order issued by Magistrate Judge Lynch permitting the pretrial release of Defendant pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3142(f). The Court, having conducted a de novo review of the evidence submitted at the September 5, 2013, hearing before the Magistrate Judge and an inde..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REVOCATION OF RELEASE ORDER
(Docket No. 10)
SARAH EVANS BARKER, District Judge.
Now before the Court is the Government's Motion for Revocation of Release Order objecting to and seeking reversal of the release order issued by Magistrate Judge Lynch permitting the pretrial release of Defendant pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). The Court, having conducted a de novo review of the evidence submitted at the September 5, 2013, hearing before the Magistrate Judge and an independent analysis of the arguments of counsel, and having reviewed the rulings of the Magistrate Judge including the conditions of release imposed on Defendant, and being duly advised in the premises, concludes that the Magistrate Judge's rulings were well founded, both in law and in fact, and thus DENIES the government's motion.
Accordingly, the undersigned judge hereby independently adopts in full those findings of fact and conclusions of law as entered by the Magistrate Judge, and incorporates them in this order as if fully set out herein, adding the following supplemental Special Conditions of Pretrial Release to those previously imposed, as delineated on Page 3 of the Order Setting Conditions of Release, which the Court also endorses:
F. The defendant shall not be permitted to be a visitor at the home of his grandmother in Middletown, Indiana, which is the location of the alleged offenses of which he stands charged.
G. In addition to the proximity restrictions imposed in Special Condition B, supra, the defendant is prohibited from being present in any location where children routinely or typically congregate, i.e., schools and daycare facilities, playgrounds and parks, places where church or similar religious activities are underway, locations where recreational/sports activities are conducted such as Little League games, clubs or youth organizations, such as Scouts, 4H, Girls/Boys Clubs, and where children are being transported by adults by car or bus or van.
H. The defendant shall relinquish possession of any video cameras or equipment that he possesses which are separate from computers and cell phones.
I. The defendant shall truthfully disclose to any employer or potential employer the pendency of the current charges against him and the restrictions on him by virtue of his conditions of release.
J. The defendant shall be assessed and required to pay the costs associated with the placement and use of the electronic monitoring device which he must wear during the period he is on home incarceration.
The pretrial services officer of the Court's Probation Department assigned to Defendant's case shall promptly inform the Defendant of these additional conditions of release and, upon securing his agreement to them as evidenced by affixing his initials or providing some other comparable form of written endorsement, the Defendant shall be released from pretrial detention forthwith. The United States Marshal shall be informed accordingly in order to effect the Defendant's release.
Upon completion of these steps, the STAY previously imposed by the Magistrate Judge shall be lifted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
