Delaware in October, 1992. In that case defendant was charged with possession of a deadly weapon, conspiracy and reckless endangerment. He pled guilty to reckless endangerment in full satisfaction of all the charges.
In addition, Magistrate Judge Smith found that the government proffered clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is a "prime-mover" in a long-running drug trafficking operation in Albany. The operation employed female "mules" to transport drugs from New York City to Albany, New York. Defendant has allegedly been selling drugs in Albany for over a year.
The government need not present a record of violence to justify a detention. United States v. Rodriguez, 950 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1991). Here, the evidence that defendant was "running" the heroin operation, combined with the statutory presumption, weigh heavily in the government's favor.
Therefore, the Court finds that the government has demonstrated defendant's dangerousness to the community by clear and convincing evidence.
Risk of Flight
Defendant is unemployed, has no assets in the Albany area, and as Magistrate Judge Smith stated, defendant's living arrangements appear "tenuous." Defendant disputes Magistrate Judge Smith's findings concerning the details of his living arrangements. However, any mistake regarding defendant's living arrangements is far less important than the facts underlying the charges against defendant.
In addition, the government proffered evidence that defendant has demonstrated a willingness to flee the jurisdiction. For example, the government asserts that defendant once moved to New York City after he discovered that the Albany Police Department had used an informant to purchase heroin from him. Defendant apparently has family in Brooklyn, New York and continued to run the operation from there.
In summary, the Court finds that defendant's family ties to the community are neither strong nor stable; that he has no assets or employment in the Albany area; and that he has demonstrated a willingness to flee the jurisdiction. In considering this very issue, Congress found that flight to avoid prosecution is "particularly high among those charged with major drug offenses." Martir, 872 F.2d at 1144 (quoting Sen. Rep. No. 225, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 20 (1978), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3203)).
Therefore, it is the decision of this Court that the government has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of defendant as required.
Therefore, having carefully considered the arguments of counsel and the record in this matter, it is hereby,
ORDERED that Defendant's motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 6, 1995
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK
FREDERICK J. SCULLIN, JR.
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE