Free Order of Detention - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cr-00238-WDM

Document 101

Filed 10/17/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case No.: 01-CR-00238-WDM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. THOMAS ORMSBY, Defendant.

ORDER OF DETENTION THIS MATTER came before the Court for a detention hearing on October 17, 2006. Present were the following: Arturo Hernandez, Assistant United States Attorney, Lafonda Jones, counsel for the defendant, and the defendant. The Court reviewed the entire court file and considered the comments of counsel. The Court has concluded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant, and has found that there is clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions for release will reasonably assure the safety of the community, based upon the attached findings. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or their 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; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant is to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to consult confidentially with defense counsel; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon order of this Court or on request of an attorney for the United States of America, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver defendant to the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with this proceeding.

Case 1:01-cr-00238-WDM

Document 101

Filed 10/17/2006

Page 2 of 3

DATED and ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2006. By the Court: s Craig B. Shaffer Craig B. Shaffer United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:01-cr-00238-WDM

Document 101

Filed 10/17/2006

Page 3 of 3

United States v. Thomas Ormsby Case Number 01-cr-00238-WDM

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW and REASONS FOR ORDER OF DETENTION This matter comes before the court on a Petition for Issuance of Arrest Warrant because of Violation of Probation and/or Supervised Release. The Petition alleges that on May 10, 2006, the defendant was placed on supervision by District Judge Miller. The defendant' term of s supervision was twenty months, and included very specific special conditions. One condition, in particular, required the defendant to participate in an approved program of sex offender evaluation and treatment. During a hearing on October 17, 2006, the defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing under Rule 32.1 of the Federal of Criminal Procedure, and did not present any information relating to the issue of detention. The defendant, through counsel, also advised the court that he was not contesting the government' request for detention. Based upon the facts s alleged in the Petition and in light of the defendant' waiver, the court finds that probable cause s exists to believe that the defendant violated one or more conditions of his release. Under Rule 32.1, the court " may release or detain the [defendant] under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a) pending further proceedings. The burden of establishing that the person will not flee or pose a danger to any other person or to the community rests with the [defendant]." In making my findings of fact, I have taken judicial notice of the information set forth in the Petition and the entire court file. I further note the defendant' decision not to contest s detention at this time. Weighing all of the information presently before the court, I find that defendant has failed to sustain his burden under Rule 32.1. I specifically note that the Petition indicates that on October 4, 2006, the defendant was discharged from sex offender treatment because of non-compliance with treatment program requirements. The Petition identifies a series of events and a pattern of conduct which manifests " same high-risk behaviors that resulted in the [the defendant' revocation of supervised release in May 2006." The Petition further notes that s] " treatment is not a priority in [the defendant' life; he continues to engage in deviant sexual s] behaviors and is unwilling to discontinue these behaviors." Given the defendant' inability to s control his conduct and his apparent failure to comply with the conditions of supervised release imposed by the District Court, I find there is no combination of conditions that I could set that would properly assure the defendant' appearance at further proceedings in this case, or s reasonably assure the safety of the community.