United States v. Sterling

• Decision Date: 08 May 2020
• Docket Number: CRIMINAL ACTION No. 19-636-13
• Citation: 459 F.Supp.3d 673
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Shahaad STERLING
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

459 F.Supp.3d 673

UNITED STATES of America

v.Shahaad STERLING

CRIMINAL ACTION No. 19-636-13

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Filed May 8, 2020

Sean P. McDonnell, U.S. Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, PA, for United States of America.

MEMORANDUM

Juan R. Sánchez, C.J.

Defendant Shahaad Sterling, who is currently detained pending trial on several drug charges, moves for bail in light of the ongoing novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. On November 1, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge granted the Government's pretrial detention motion and Sterling has been detained since. Sterling now asks this Court to review Judge Strawbridge's decision arguing his detention is not necessary to assure his appearance for trial or the safety of the community. He also argues his pretrial detention during the COVID-19 pandemic violates his due process rights. Because Sterling has failed to rebut the presumption of his pretrial detention and because the existence of COVID-19 alone does not warrant his release, the Court will deny his motion.

BACKGROUND

Sterling is charged with five counts related to his alleged participation in a large drug trafficking group which conspired to distribute crack-cocaine and other drugs in Chester, Pennsylvania.¹ After his arrest on October 30, 2019, the Government moved for pretrial detention. On November 1, 2019, Judge Strawbridge held a hearing and granted the Government's motion. Sterling has been detained since at the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (FDC Philadelphia). Sterling is one of thirteen Defendants in a complex case involving 68 Counts arising out of the alleged drug trafficking conspiracy. He and his codefendants are scheduled for trial beginning November 9, 2020.

Much has changed since Sterling's arrest and detention order. Due to COVID-19, a novel and highly contagious respiratory virus, Pennsylvania (and the world) has confronted a rapidly changing public health crisis that has reached the scale of a global pandemic. See WHO characterizes COVID-19 as a pandemic , World Health Org. (Mar. 11, 2020), https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/events-as-they-happen. The virus commonly causes fever, coughing, and shortness of breath, amongst a wide range of other symptoms. See Watch for symptoms , Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html (last visited May 8, 2020). Some populations, including the elderly and immunocompromised, are at a higher risk of developing more serious complications upon exposure to the virus. See id. As of May 8, 2020, the virus has infected nearly 1,219,066 people in the United States and resulted in 73,297 deaths. See Cases of Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) in the U.S. , Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html (last updated May 7, 2020). In Pennsylvania, there are 54,238 confirmed cases and 3,616 reported deaths. See COVID-19 Data for Pennsylvania , Pa. Dep't of Health, https://www.health.pa.gov/topics/disease/coronavirus/Pages/Coronavirus.aspx (last updated May 8, 2020, 12:00 PM).

Because COVID-19 is highly contagious and spreads primarily through person-to-person contact, its existence has dramatically affected all realms of life. Federal, state, and local public health authorities have advised certain precautions be taken to avoid exposure and prevent the spread of the virus. In Pennsylvania, like in many other states, individuals have been directed to stay at home unless engaging in an essential activity or providing life-sustaining or government services. Nonessential businesses have closed their doors, schools have closed for the rest of the academic year, and people are avoiding gatherings of any kind. In this district, the Court has taken significant steps to limit operations to prevent the spread of the virus.

In light of the precautions necessary to prevent the virus's spread, COVID-19 poses a unique challenge to the prison system. See Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities , Ctrs. for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidan ce-correctional-detention.html (last updated Mar. 23, 2020). Nevertheless, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Bureau of Prisons² (BOP) has implemented several protocols to protect the health and safety of the inmates, staff, and general public from the spread of the virus. The BOP's efforts include quarantining new inmates at the facility until they are cleared, screening inmates by health services prior to placement, suspending visits, and significantly decreasing the traffic of individuals entering the facilities. See BOP Implementing Modified Operations , Fed. Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/covid19_status.jsp (last visited May 8, 2020). Although COVID-19 appears to be spreading in the community, as of May 8, 2020, there are no positive cases of COVID-19 among inmates at FDC Philadelphia.³ Further, no inmate has presented any known symptoms of COVID-19 nor has any inmate required testing.

On April 30, 2020, however, the Warden of FDC Philadelphia reported one staff member has tested positive for COVID-19. The staff member has not been in the institution since April 12, 2020; however, FDC Philadelphia did not receive confirmation of the positive test until late April 29, 2020. On May 1, and May 5, 2020, a second and third staff member tested positive for COVID-19. See Letter Update, May 5, 2020, ECF No. 41, Brown v. Marler , No. 20-1914 (E.D. Pa. filed Apr. 15, 2020). According to reports, FDC Philadelphia is following and implementing all best practices and guidelines for sanitation and prevention of spreading the virus. There have been no other reported cases of COVID-19 in the institution.

On April 10, 2020, Sterling filed the instant motion for bail and asks this Court to review Judge Strawbridge's decision and grant him pretrial release. Sterling first argues he is neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk under the Bail Reform Act. He also argues his pretrial detention violates his due process rights and fails to serve any compelling government interest in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Considering the changed circumstances created by COVID-19 since his pretrial detention hearing, Sterling argues pretrial detention is not necessary to assure his appearance at trial and the safety of the community. The Government opposes the motion.

The Court held a telephonic hearing on April 27, 2020. At the hearing, Sterling consented to proceed with the hearing on his motion by telephone conference and waived his right to an in-person hearing. See Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 15002(b)(1)(A), (b)(4), 134 Stat. 281, 528–29 (2020). In support of his release, Sterling presented evidence that was not presented at the November 1, 2019, hearing before Judge Strawbridge. His proffered evidence included his high school diploma, his lack of prior criminal history, work history, and letters of support from family and community members. The Government responded with evidence of Sterling's persistent use of firearms and numerous drug transactions on behalf of the drug trafficking group.

DISCUSSION

The Court will deny Sterling's motion because he has failed to rebut the presumption that his pretrial detention is appropriate and because the mere existence of COVID-19 does not warrant his release. Because Judge Strawbridge has already determined Sterling shall be detained pending trial, Sterling's motion is essentially an appeal from that determination in light of new circumstances. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b), a district court may review a magistrate judge's pretrial detention. The court's review is de novo. See United States v. Delker , 757 F.2d 1390, 1394–95 (3d Cir. 1985). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), a court may reopen a hearing on pretrial detention if "information exists that was not known to the [defendant] 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 defendant's appearance and the safety of the community.

Initially, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, there is still a presumption that Sterling is a danger to the community and a flight risk, and his pretrial detention is still proper pursuant to the Bail Reform Act. Under that statute, a court may detain a defendant pending trial only if, after a hearing, the court finds "that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other persons and the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). There is a rebuttable presumption "that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community" if the court finds there is probable cause to believe the defendant committed an offense under the Controlled Substances Act punishable by ten or more years of imprisonment. Id. § 3142(e)(3)(A). An indictment charging the defendant with such an offense is "sufficient to support a finding of probable cause triggering the rebuttable presumption of dangerousness under § 3142(e)."

United States v. Suppa , 799 F.2d 115, 119 (3d Cir. 1986).

The indictment in this case triggers the rebuttable presumption of pretrial detention. The indictment charges Sterling with several counts under the Controlled Substances Act which bear the requisite penalty. In Count 1, Sterling is charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine base ("crack"), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. For a person with no prior felony drug convictions, this offense carries a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C. §...