Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cr-00030-GIVIS Document 9 Filed O3/07/2007 Page 1 of 2
Q AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial
District of Delaware
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
Brad Lee Derrickson Case _ 30_ O QA
Deferzdanl
In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3 l42(f`), a detention hearing has been held. I conclude that the following facts require the
detention ofthe defendant pending trial in this case.
Part I——Findings of Fact
Q (1) The defendant is charged with an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 3l42(f)(l) and has been convicted ofa Q federal offense Q state
or local offense that would have been a federal offense ifa circumstance giving rise to federal jurisdiction had existed that is
Q a crime of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 3l56(a)(4).
Q an offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death.
Q an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment often years or more is prescribed in
>1¢
Q iielony that was committed after the defendant had been convicted of two or more prior federal offenses described in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3·142(f)(1)(A)—(C), or comparable state or local offenses.
Q (2) The offense described in finding (1) was committed while the defendant was on release pending trial for a federal, state or local offense.
Q (3) A period of not more than Hve years has elapsed since the Q date of conviction Q release ofthe defendant from imprisonment
for the offense described in finding (1).
Q (4) Findings Nos. (1), (2) and (3) establish a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the
safety of(an) other person(s) and the community. I further find that the defendant has not rebutted this presumption.
Alternative Findings (A)
(1) There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense
for which a maximum term ofimprisonment often years or more is prescribed in .
Q under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
Q (2) The defendant has not rebutted the presumption established by finding l that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure
the appearance ofthe defendant as required and the safety ofthe community. ___ -.- . . .. . F.----
Alternative Findings (B) 1*: D l
(1) There is a serious risk that the defendant will not appear. I-——————·-·——·"_*"" I l
X (2) There is a serious risk that the defendant will endanger the safety of another person or the community. _
l l.·'= li rl if .· QT l l
1 . 1
_ E l l
‘ Twin tz ·c|r *?·¤·C;`$ =T;·3l..'i€:1
Part II—Written Statement of Reasons for Detention
1 find that the credible testimony and information submitted at the hearing establishes by clear and convincing evidence a prepon-
derance ofthe evidence: The court finds that there are no conditions that will reasonably assured the safety ofthe community. Defendant is charged
with dowloading and receipt of child pomography, possession of child porn and receipt of obscene pictures of children. The basis for
detention is as follows:
1. The charges defendant faces recently were established by Congress as subject to the rebuttable presumption.
2. The evidence against defendant is substantial. Although a search of defendant’s home occurred in August 2006 and defendant was cooperative
with the investigating and subsequent arresting officers, his computer contains very graphic and dark pictures of children involved in various
sex acts. ln his interview defendant claimed that young girls around age fourteen hold his interest (because that was a good year in his life- when
he was happiest), however, the computer films belie that comment. Most ofthe films deal with children between the ages of 1 to 5 years. Eleven
minutes ofthe films show children blindfold and being forcsdlto engage in sexual activity with adults which include oral sex with a child less than
2 years of age, forced penetration of 3-4 your olds of their ari-;-éitd vaginal areas by adult males with evidence of fear, writhing and pain by the
children during the sex actsfhe descriptions ofthe sexual activity was the worst that this court has ever heard or read.!\- #£•·*'f·*·•""€l: ·
3. Shortly after the search warrant was issued, defendant, who had been living with his parents, moved out and began residing with a co worker who
is also a registered sex offender (defendant claims that he did not know this).
4. Defendant suffers from depression in the past and had undergone treatment which he stopped despite the fact that he was still covered by his
father’s insurance until January 2007. Defendant stopped treatment at least 7 months ago and despite he awareness ofthe child porn investigation .
against him, never continued with any treatment. Etidence indicates that he never sought treatment for or discussed with his therapist his sexual
proclivities. Further, defendant claimed that he stopped counseling and treatment because he could not afford it. This comment and his failure to
continue any form oftreatment, as well as not advising his doctor of his sexual proclivities strsnqégjv suggests to the court that he does not recognize
his activities as dangerous or not acceptable. It also shows that he is attempting to hide or do Jhifproblems and that his honesty is questionable.

Case 1 :07-cr-00030-GIVIS Document 9 Filed O3/07/2007 Page 2 of 2
Qi AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial
Defendant has no significant criminal history (disorderly conduct in 1998 is his only charge or conviction); the dark nature ofthe films which
defendant purchased and his obvious inability to recognize his need for treatment/counseling goes to the issue of dangerousness. Defendant has
family support as evidenced by those members who were in the courtroom (parents and uncle), but their attempts to assist defendant in the recent past
have not been successful, which is not their fault, but the responsibility of defendant.']-he court also doubts that the family was aware ofthe serious
psychological problems, in addition to depression, that defendant has.
Part III—Directions Regarding Detention
The defendant is committed to the custody ofthe Attorney General or his designated representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate,
to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a
reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the
Government, the person in charge ofthe corrections facility shall deliver the ( e United States marshal for the purpose ofan appearance in
connection with a court proceeding. .__. /
March 6, 2007 in AL nuff i _“ -
Date - Signature 0fJr i mcer
Mary Pat Thynge, Magisnate Judge
Name and Title 0fJudicial Ojicer
*1nsert as applicable: (a) Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 ez seq.); (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. § 951 ez
seq.); or (c) Section 1 ofAct ofSept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a).