United States v. Sanders
| Decision Date | 31 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 19-20037-01-DDC |
| Citation | 450 F.Supp.3d 1123 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Roderick B. SANDERS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Trent M. Krug, Office of United States Attorney, Kansas City, KS, for Plaintiff.
R. Bruce Kips, Shawnee, KS, for Defendant.
Defendant Roderick B. Sanders has moved for review of the court's Detention Order. See Doc. 11 (seeking review of Doc. 10). Initially, Mr. Sanders asserted the court should release him because he is not a flight risk or a danger to the community. Then, he filed a Legal Memorandum seeking temporary release under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i). Doc. 15; Doc. 21. He argues the court should grant him temporary release because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The government opposes Mr. Sanders's motion. Doc. 16. The government has charged Mr. Sanders with various drug trafficking offenses involving cocaine base, marijuana, and methamphetamine (Counts 1, 2, 3); possession of 18 firearms as a prohibited person (Count 4); possession of firearms in furtherance of drug-trafficking offenses (Count 5); and maintaining a residence for drug trafficking (Count 6). Doc. 1.
In his Detention Order (Doc. 10), Magistrate Judge O'Hara concluded that the government had shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that no single condition or combination of conditions other than detention reasonably will assure the safety of others or the community. Specifically, Judge O'Hara's Order applied the statutory factors specified in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), finding that the following factors favored detention: (a) the nature and circumstances of the crimes charged; (b) the government's "strong case" against Mr. Sanders; (c) several aspects of Mr. Sanders's personal history and characteristics disfavor pretrial release (i.e. , he has a history of violent behavior and drug abuse, he has a significant prior criminal record, he has a history of failing to appear at court proceedings, and he previously has failed to comply with conditions of release); (d) Mr. Sanders was on probation when he allegedly committed the criminal offenses charged by the Indictment; and (e) the threat of continued, armed drug trafficking, if released, poses a serious risk of danger to the community. Doc. 10 at 1–2.
Judge O'Hara also relied on the rebuttable presumptions imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) because the grand jury found probable cause to believe Mr. Sanders had committed: (a) an offense with a maximum prison terms of 10 years or more; and (b) a § 924(c) offense, i.e. , use of a firearm in connection with drug trafficking. Specifically, he held that Mr. Sanders had rebutted the statutory presumption but "[n]evertheless, the presumptions remain a factor (among all others) to be considered" in the detention decision. Id. at 2.
Because Mr. Sanders asserts two alternative bases for release from pretrial detention, the court addresses each argument separately, below.
When a defendant moves for review of a detention order, the court "must make an independent determination of the proper pretrial detention [decision] or conditions of release." United States v. Rueben , 974 F.2d 580, 585–86 (5th Cir. 1992) (cited in United States v. Cisneros , 328 F.3d 610 (10th Cir. 2003) ). Mr. Sanders requested a full in person hearing, which the court held on March 26, 2020. Doc. 17. The parties elected to proceed by proffer, meaning that each party's counsel offered statements each could show by evidence if the opposing party invoked its right to a purely evidentiary presentation. Neither party objected to the contents of the other's proffer. On the government's request, the court takes judicial notice of (1) the Indictment, (2) Mr. Sanders's Pretrial Services Report, and (3) the government's evidence proffered at the February 26, 2020 detention hearing before Judge O'Hara.
The government's proffer asserted that on September 25, 2017, Kansas City, Kansas police officers discovered a stolen black truck. Officers also saw an unknown individual holding a green bag leave the truck and enter a nearby house. The officers spoke with the stolen truck's passenger, who confessed that he had smoked marijuana with another person, but the passenger did not identify that person. Officers approached the house the unidentified man had entered and found a sign on the door asking visitors to call first and providing a phone number. When officers called the number, they saw the unknown individual from the truck leave the house with the green bag in tow and enter the woods behind the house. The officers pursued him, but they could not locate him. They recovered the green bag from the woods. The green bag contained marijuana, digital scales, several cell phones (including one corresponding to the phone number posted on the sign on the front door of the house), pill bottles, a loaded handgun, a Missouri driver's license issued to Roderick Sanders, and a Visa credit card in Mr. Sanders's name. Later, officers returned to the residence and executed a search warrant. Their search found 18 firearms, more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition, digital scales, methamphetamine packaged for resale and in bulk, and mail addressed to Mr. Sanders, among other items.
The pretrial services report corroborates much of what the government asserts about Mr. Sanders's history and characteristics. Since Mr. Sanders turned 18 years old some 11 years ago, he has had many significant convictions. His convictions include fleeing from law enforcement officers (2009), possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of controlled substances (2010), and a more recent conviction for unlawful possession and use of a weapon (2015). He also has a currently pending charge for felony possession of a controlled substance.
Besides these convictions, Mr. Sanders has failed to comply with conditions of release. Most notably, after his 2010 gun conviction in this court, the United States Probation Office accused Mr. Sanders of violating a mandatory condition of his term of supervised release. Specifically, the probation office accused Mr. Sanders of violating the condition requiring him "not [to] commit another federal, state, or local crime." See Pet. for Warrant or Summons at 1, United States v. Sanders , No. 10-20034 (D. Kan. Feb. 3, 2011), ECF. No. 35. Specifically, this Petition asserted that on February 2, 2011, Kansas City, Kansas police alleged that Mr. Sanders "fired a gun; missing the intended individual, and striking an unintended victim, who had to be hospitalized for injuries sustained in the shooting." Id. In June 2012, Mr. Sanders stipulated to this violation. See Revocation J. at 1, Sanders , No. 10-20043 (D. Kan. June 1, 2012), ECF. No. 44. He received a 24-months prison sentence for this violation.
Id.1 Also, Mr. Sanders was under supervision by the Jackson County Circuit Court in Kansas City, Missouri when, according to the government's proffer, he engaged in the conduct charged by this case's Indictment.
Mr. Sanders responded with his own proffer. His counsel proffered that the government's evidence of his alleged flight from law enforcement on the date charged in the Indictment is circumstantial. Mr. Sanders also asserts the analysis mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 3142 favors his release. Namely, he asserts that his personal history shows he is not a flight risk. He asserts that his only conviction for evading law enforcement was more than 10 years earlier and does not reflect Mr. Sanders's potential risk now. Also, Mr. Sanders cares for his deceased fiancé's legally blind mother and supports his children. He is working with a health aide company, assisting disabled individuals in their homes. Mr. Sanders also asserts that he has made regular appearances on a charge pending before a Saline County, Missouri court over the last eight months.
After considering the parties' proffers and conducting a de novo review of the governing statutory factors, the court reaches the same conclusions as Judge O'Hara. The court finds the government has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that no single condition or combination of conditions reasonably will assure the safety of the community. In significant measure, the court reaches these conclusions because: (a) the government's evidence against Mr. Sanders is strong; (b) Mr. Sanders's past conduct demonstrates that the court cannot count on him to comply with conditions of release; (c) Mr. Sanders has a history of violent behavior and a substantial criminal history; and (d) he has proposed a release plan that is thin on details and offers little assurance of stability, i.e. , he relies on others for a place to live, and has a history of failing to abide by court conditions.
For these reasons, and after considering all of the statutory factors specified in § 3142(g), the court denies Mr. Sanders's motion. The court also finds that no condition or combination of conditions will assure the safety of others and the community.
Alternatively, Mr. Sanders seeks temporary release under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) because of the current COVID-19 pandemic. Doc. 15. Mr. Sanders asserts that he is at "a great[er] risk for contracting [the] dangerous disease" while detained at CoreCivic at Leavenworth, Kansas, than if he was released from custody. Id. at 1. His brief cites the increasing infections in Kansas and asserts that "[c]onditions of pretrial confinement create the ideal environment for the transmission of contagious disease." Id. at 2–3. He also argues the conditions of his confinement put him in close contact with 26 other people, and CoreCivic has not provided adequate hygiene supplies to protect him and others from the virus. The government opposes this request, arguing that Mr. Sanders has not met his burden under the statute. See generally Doc. 16. Instead, the government asserts, Mr. Sanders...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Butler
...The defendant has the burden to show that circumstances warranting temporary release under § 3142(i) exist. United States v. Sanders, 450 F. Supp. 3d 1123, 1127 (D. Kan. 2020).2 "The question for the Court is whether the COVID-19 health risks to the Defendant, should he remain detained, out......
-
United States v. Bond
...concluding that under four-pronged COVID-19 analysis, factors weighed against temporary release); United States v. Sanders, No. 19-20037-01-DDC, 450 F.Supp.3d 1123 (D. Kan. March 31, 2020) (denying release to defendant charged with drug offenses, possession of firearms by a felon, § 924(c) ......
-
United States v. Fomukong
...The defendant has the burden to show that circumstances warranting temporary release under § 3142(i) exist. United States v. Sanders, 450 F. Supp. 3d 1123, 1127 (D. Kan. 2020). "The question for the Court is whether the COVID-19 health risks to the Defendant, should he remain detained, outw......
-
United States v. Graham
...condition that places him at greater risk with respect to COVID-19 than the rest of the population. See United States v. Sanders , No. 19-20037-01-DDC, 450 F.Supp.3d 1123, 1127–28, D. Kan. Mar. 31, 2020) (noting that the defendant has no elevated personal risk factors for COVID-19, and may ......