United States v. Meeks, CASE NUMBER: 10-20123

• Decision Date: 22 September 2011
• Docket Number: CASE NUMBER: 10-20123
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. D-6 MICHAEL DAVID MEEKS and, D-7 THOMAS WILLIAM PIATEK, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,

v.D-6 MICHAEL DAVID MEEKS and, D-7 THOMAS WILLIAM PIATEK, Defendants.

CASE NUMBER: 10-20123

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Dated: September 22, 2011

HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Michael Meeks' Amended Motion for Bond Hearing. (Doc. # 399). Defendant Thomas Piatek joins and concurs, incorporating by reference some of Meeks' legal arguments. (Doc. # 402). The Court finds a hearing is not necessary, and cancels the hearing scheduled for September 28, 2011.

The Court DENIES the motions.

II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 10, 2011, the Government, in a Second Superseding Indictment, charged Defendants Meeks, Piatek, and seven others, with conspiring to oppose by force the authority of the United States Government, conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction, and related offenses.

The Government alleges all nine Defendants belong to an anti-governmentextremist organization, the Hutaree. The charges are serious and two trigger a presumption that no condition, or combination of conditions, will reasonably assure Defendants' appearance in Court as required, and the safety of the community, for purposes of pretrial release.

In March and April of 2010, all Defendants appeared before magistrate judges for detention hearings. The magistrates ordered all of them detained. They moved to revoke the detention orders. The Court held a de novo bond review hearing on April 27-28, 2010. The Court granted all Defendants' motions and reversed the magistrates' detention orders, imposing a variety of conditions of release on Defendants. The Government moved to stay this Court's order pending appeal to the Sixth Circuit. This Court granted, but then dissolved, a limited stay and ordered that Defendants be released. However, on May 10, 2010, a panel of the Sixth Circuit granted a temporary stay.

The Government appealed the Court's release of Defendants David Stone, Sr., Joshua Stone, Michael Meeks, Thomas Piatek, and Joshua Clough. Although it originally appealed the release of all Defendants, it abandoned its appeal of the release of David Stone, Jr., Tina Stone, Kristopher Sickles, and Jacob Ward. On June 22, 2010, the Sixth Circuit reversed this Court's order releasing David Stone, Sr., Joshua Stone, Michael Meeks, Thomas Piatek, and Joshua Clough. It held that "each defendant pose[d] a danger to the community and that no conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of the community." United States v. Stone, 608 F.3d 939, 954 (6th Cir. 2010); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1) ("If, after hearing pursuant to the provisions of subsection (f) of this section, the judicial officer finds that no condition orcombination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community, such judicial officer shall order the detention of the person before trial.").

Now, over a year later, Defendants Meeks and Piatek move the Court to open their bond hearings. They assert they have new information material to whether their release poses a threat to society under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(B) and that their detention infringes on their Second Amendment right to possess weapons; Meeks also argues that the length of his pretrial detention violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Mandate Rule and Law of the Case

The Government points out, the Sixth Circuit rejected the issues Defendants raise when it denied their petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc. The Government says because of that, the law of the case doctrine and mandate rule bar their consideration here.

The Court finds that the mandate rule and law of the case doctrine do not apply. While the Sixth Circuit ultimately denied rehearing, it remanded for further proceedings consistent with its published opinion, Stone, 608 F.3d at 954. That opinion did not address the merits of the due process and Second Amendment concerns now raised, or the new information Defendants bring to the Court's attention. Cf. Irving v. United States, 162 F.3d 154, 161 n.7 (1st Cir. 1998) ("In all events, we consider denials of rehearing en banc a very weak justification for a strict application of the law of the case doctrine. Denials of suggestions for rehearing en banc are pure exercises of discretion,and, as such, the grant or denials of rehearing en banc is the functional equivalent of a grant or denial of certiorari by the Supreme Court. Such actions make no statement about the full court's view on the merits of a claim it declines to hear.").

However, as detailed below, Defendants' arguments and the information presented do not provide a basis either to reopen their detention hearings or to release them.

B. New Information Material to Dangerousness

18 U.S.C. § 1342(f)(2)(B) governs the reopening of a pretrial detention hearing because of new information material to dangerousness and/or risk of flight. That section states:

The hearing may be reopened, before or after a determination by the judicial officer, at any time before trial if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.

To justify reopening the hearing, the new information must be sufficiently material to the issue of dangerousness. United States v. Sandles, 9 Fed. Appx. 377, 379 (6th Cir. 2001). "Courts have interpreted strictly the statutory provision authorizing the reopening of a detention hearing, holding that hearings should not be reopened if the evidence proffered was available at the time of the hearing." United States v. Jerdine, No. 1:08 CR 00481, 2009 WL 4906564, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 18, 2009) (citing United States v. Dillon, 938 F.2d 1412, 1415 (1st Cir. 1991); United States v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796, 799 (5th Cir. 1989); United States v. Peralta, 849 F.2d 625, 626-27 (D.C. Cir. 1988)).

Both Defendants claim entitlement to a new bond hearing under § 3142(f)(2)(B). The "new evidence" or information they present is really a lack of evidence. After a year of discovery, Meeks says "[t]he Government has no evidence that [he] ever possessed any tracer ammunition, or components to make an IED." (Doc. # 399 at 4). He calls the Government's allegations that he possessed these materials, "the primary 'facts' relied upon by the Sixth Circuit in their determination." (Id.). He states the new evidence is material "to the supposed danger to the community the Sixth Circuit finds [him] to be." Id.

The Government contends this information is not new because it was offered to support Meeks' petition for rehearing before the Sixth Circuit. It also says the presence of tracer rounds and IED components was not a "primary fact" the Sixth Circuit relied on to detain him. It states, "[d]etention was based upon a combination of factors...." (Doc. # 413 at 8).

Assuming, without deciding, that the information Meeks now has, after a year of discovery, meets the definition of "new information," it does not provide a basis for this Court to release him. Importantly, the Sixth Circuit did not rely solely on the presence of tracer rounds and IED components (indeed, it mentioned no IED components were uncovered) at Meeks' residence when it discussed the evidence it believed strongly favored a finding of dangerousness:

When Meeks' home was searched, the FBI found 16 long guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition, in addition to substantial food stockpiles and gas masks. He had been tasked to get component materials for IEDs, though no explosive devices were found in his home. He has spoken frequently about different ways to kill police officers, owns five semi-automatic weapons and has stated that he has a thousand tracer rounds for his AR-15 that he would be "doling out" to the Hutaree.

He voiced plans to die by "copicide," which he has explained means killing a law enforcement officer while dying at the hands of another officer. On a single day in June 2009, Meeks suggested blowing up a local bridge "when the enemy came"; he "discussed capping a member of law enforcement and seizing that person's weapons"; and he stated that members of Congress "think they're different" but "wait until they find out that they bleed exactly the same." ... Meeks also declared: "We got to start over man. We got to get rid of the judicial system, everybody. They need to die." ... In February 2010, another Hutaree member suggested killing a judge, and Meeks chimed in: "I'm lookin' at enough people right here to take out virtually anybody. And I mean virtually anybody. You just got to be motivated enough to go do it." ... This evidence weighs strongly in favor of dangerousness.

Stone, 608 F.3d at 949-50 (emphasis added).

While the Sixth Circuit mentioned that authorities found 1000 tracer rounds at Meeks' home, id. at 953, this was one factor among many that warranted a finding of dangerousness. Meeks' "substantial arsenal of weapons," id., and his statements evincing a desire to kill law enforcement and other government officials were equally, if not more, important to the court's holding. The Sixth Circuit's discussion of dangerousness focused more heavily on the many comments Meeks made regarding ways to kill law enforcement and others; the court quoted him extensively throughout this discussion. The court stated, "[v]iewing all of the factors together, we conclude that, as to Michael Meeks, no conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of the community." Id.

Furthermore, if there is currently no reliable evidence that tracer rounds were recovered from Meeks' home, then there was no such evidence at the time of the Government's appeal. The Sixth...