United States v. Rodvelt
| Decision Date | 05 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 1:19-cr-00454-MC |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. GREGORY LEE RODVELT, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
On September 7, 2018, a federal agent was injured by an explosive device when he entered a home that had at one time been the residence of the defendant, Gregory Rodvelt. The defendant was eventually indicted in October of 2019 on charges of Assault on a Federal Officer, Using and Discharging a Firearm During a Crime of Violence, and Unlawful Possession of a Destructive Device. Defendant now moves to dismiss the indictment against him based on the Government's alleged four-and-a-half-year delay in bringing him to trial. Because Defendant's statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial were not violated the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 40) is denied.
In April of 2017, Defendant was indicted on unrelated state charges in Arizona. Def.'s Mot. 4; ECF No. 40. While living in Arizona on pretrial release, the state court granted him permission to travel to Oregon to contest a foreclosure matter on property defendant claimed ownership. Def.'s Mot. 4. Defendant, however, was unable to get to Oregon in time for the hearing and the Oregon court, in the Defendant's absence, appointed a receiver to sell the property on August 22, 2018. Def.'s Mot. 4. The Government alleges that before returning to Arizona Defendant booby trapped the property with the explosive devices that underly the indictment here. Govt.'s Resp. 2; ECF No. 44.
On September 7, 2018, the property receiver and a private investigator visited the property. Govt.'s Resp. 5; Def.'s Mot. 4-5. They called the police after noticing a sign "warning visitors that the house was protected by improvised munitions." Govt.'s Resp. 5. The Oregon State Police bomb squad and an FBI bomb technician arrived. Def.'s Mot. 5. While inspecting the property, law enforcement agents found several booby traps including a hot tub rigged to roll downhill-which Defendant later allegedly described to an FBI agent by referencing the rolling stone from the movie Indiana Jones. Govt.'s Resp. 2; Def.'s Mot. 60, 63. Because the house on the property had bars securing it from the inside:
[a]gents used an explosive charge to breach the front door. While entering, one of them moved a wheelchair which triggered a trap. There was an explosion as a .410 shotgun shell discharged and hit an FBI agent in his lower leg. The agent was taken to the hospital and an X-ray showed a foreign object shaped like a pellet embedded in his left leg below the knee.
Govt.'s Resp. 2-3. The agent was released from the hospital the same day. Def.'s Mot. 6.
Later that day, FBI agents in Arizona interviewed Defendant about the incident at the Oregon property. Def.'s Mot. 6. The FBI also began coordinating with local law enforcement- Maricopa County Sheriff's Office ("MCSO")-to arrest Defendant and have his bond revoked in state court. Def.'s Mot. 6 The FBI indicated in an internal email that it wanted MCSO to make an "arrest for pretrial violation in lieu of waiting for [a federal] arrest warrant." Def.'s Mot. 7, 88. After being notified of the Oregon incident, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office requested, and was issued, a state warrant for Defendant's violation of his pretrial release. Govt.'s Resp. 3; See Govt. Ex. 1 (request for warrant) and Govt. Ex. 2 (pretrial warrant).
On September 8, 2018, Defendant was collecting lizards in the desert when he was arrested by a joint task force made up of several FBI agents and two MCSO law enforcement officers. Evid. Hear. 94-95, 126, ECF No. 64. The FBI agents questioned Defendant and then turned him over to an MCSO Detective, who made the arrest based on the state warrant. Evid. Hear. 102-03. An MCSO deputy transported Defendant to the Maricopa County jail where defendant was booked on his state charges. Evid. Hear. 95-96. Defendant was released the next day (September 9, 2018) and an Arizona prosecutor filed a motion to revoke Defendant's pretrial release based on the Oregon property incident. Govt.'s Resp. 3; See Govt. Ex. 4. On September 10, 2018, a federal criminal complaint and arrest warrant were issued, charging Defendant with assaulting a federal officer. Govt.'s Resp. 3. Due to safety concerns relating to the location of Defendant's residence, rather than arresting him that night, the FBI chose to wait until his court appearance the following morning.[1] Evid. Hear. 130-31.
On September 11, 2018, Defendant appeared in state court for a final pretrial hearing in his state case. Govt.'s Resp. 3. Because of the incident at the Oregon property, the state's attorney moved to revoke Defendant's bond for violation of the pretrial release. Govt.'s Resp. 3. Having heard about the Oregon incident, the state judge decided to hold Defendant as nonbondable. Bond Hear. 21, ECF No. 56-2. An FBI Agent notified the court of the federal arrest warrant and stated that if the state did not take Defendant into custody, then he intended to take Defendant into federal custody. Bond Hear. 22. When presented with the choice of going into state or federal custody, Defendant said he "would rather take care of this case first and then deal with the federal case second." Bond Hear. 24-25. However, after speaking with advisory counsel, Defendant told the judge that he preferred to be taken into federal custody. Bond Hear. 26. The judge responded that she was "open to whatever is workable between the federal and the state government." Bond Hear. 26. The state trial had been pending for about nine months and was set to begin the following day. Evid. Hear. 193; Bond Hear. 31. At the state's request, the judge decided to proceed with the state trial first. Bond Hear. 26. Defendant was then placed into state custody. Bond Hear. 26-27. Defendant proceeded to trial for his state charges and was ultimately sentenced to five years of imprisonment on November 8, 2018. Govt.'s Resp. 5.
Meanwhile, the Government continued its investigation into the Oregon incident. Govt.'s Resp. 5. Special Agent Gray testified that in his twenty-eight-year career with the FBI, this was only the second time that he had encountered improvised explosive devices. Evid. Hear. 27. And when Special Agent Gluesemkamp took over the role of lead investigator in July 2019, following Special Agent Gray's retirement, he conducted a comprehensive review and identified additional areas in need of investigation. Evid. Hear. 66-68. On October 2, 2019, the Government indicted Defendant for assaulting a federal officer. ECF No. 8. The investigation continued after the indictment.[2] Evid. Hear. 71-72.
On December 30, 2019, The Government sent a detainer notice to the Arizona Department of Corrections, where Defendant was imprisoned, and requested that Defendant be notified of the federal charges and his right to demand trial. Evid. Hear 73; see Govt. Ex. 11 (detainer request). However, the paperwork was not served until April 8, 2020, after the Government's second request. Evid. Hear. 11, 74. Defendant testified that Corrections Officer Kaylor presented the paperwork from about six feet away, notified him that it related to new charges, and told him that there was a federal indictment against him. Evid. Hear. 178-81. Defendant knew that the paperwork related to the Oregon incident but did not attempt to read the paperwork nor did he ask Corrections Officer Kaylor to read it to him. Evid. Hear. 186. He refused to sign without counsel. Evid. Hear. 195. Despite having successfully requested Corrections Officer Kaylor's assistance in obtaining counsel in the past, Defendant chose not to inquire further about the contents of the paperwork or obtaining counsel. Evid. Hear. 187-88.
Corrections Officer Kaylor testified that he provided Defendant with a copy of the document and took it back after Defendant refused to sign. Evid. Hear 13. Officer Kaylor's testimony is credible and supported by the record. The record established that Officer Kaylor repeatedly assisted Defendant in the past, including on two occasions where Defendant requested to speak with an attorney. The paperwork was sent back to the Government, indicating that Defendant was presented the paperwork and refused to sign. Govt.'s Resp. 6; Evid. Hear. 13. Because Defendant was subject to a felony detainer, he was moved to a higher level of security and lost his work privileges.[3] Evid. Hear 11, 171.
On December 20 2021, a writ of habeus corpus ad prosequendum was issued and Defendant was brought to Oregon; he made his first federal court appearance on February 22, 2022. Def.'s Mot. 12. He remained in federal custody while serving out his state sentence. Govt.'s Resp. 6. On April 14, 2022, defense counsel asked for a continuance to prepare for the present motion. Def.'s Mot. 24. This Court held an evidentiary hearing on November 1, 2022. Evid. Hear. ECF No. 64. Six witnesses testified, including Defendant, the Corrections Officer that presented the federal detainer to Defendant, as well as state and federal law enforcement officers involved with the investigation and arrest of Defendant. See Evid. Hear. ECF No. 64. Defendant also presented evidence on an ex parte basis regarding the existence and exculpatory nature of the evidence allegedly destroyed due to the Government's delay.
Defendant moves to dismiss the indictment because the delays in bringing him to trial allegedly violated his rights under the Speedy Trial Act ("STA") 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq., the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act ("IAD") 18 U.S.C. App. §2, art. III(c), and the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the U.S Constitution. The Government denies that Def...
To continue reading
Request your trial