United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
EDWARD-J. LODGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court in the above-entitled matter is the
Government's Motion for Stay of Release Order and Request
for Detention Hearing. (Dkt. 16.) The parties have filed
their responsive briefing on the Motion and, on May 16, 2018,
the Court held a hearing on the matter. For the reasons
stated herein, the Court denies the Government's Motion.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
February 14, 2018, the grand jury returned a two count
Indictment charging the Defendant, Israel Ramirez Diaz, with
Distributing Cocaine and Distributing Methamphetamine. (Dkt.
1.) The alleged conduct giving rise to the charges occurred
on October 26, 2017 and November 6, 2017, respectively.
February 14, 2018, an Arrest Warrant was issued for Mr. Diaz.
(Dkt. 2.) Just over two months later, on April 16, 2018, Mr.
Diaz was arrested on the Warrant (Dkt. 5) and the Government
filed a Motion for Detention pending trial (Dkt. 4). The next
day, ORDER- 1 Defendant was arraigned before United States
Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale who issued a temporary order
of detention and set the matter for a detention hearing on
April 19, 2018. (Dkts. 7, 11.)
United States Probation Office issued an initial pretrial
service report on April 17, 2018 with an addendum on April
19, 2018. (Dkts. 16-2, 16-3.) On April 19, 2018, Chief United
States Magistrate Judge Ronald E. Bush held a detention
hearing. (Dkts. 14, 19.) At that hearing, the Court reviewed
the record, admitted the pretrial services reports into
evidence, and heard testimony from DEA Agent, John Aldine;
Defendant's sister, Rachel Diaz; and Defendant's
mother, Laura Ramirez. (Id.)
the Court denied the Government's Motion for Detention
pending trial (Dkt. 4) and ordered that Mr. Diaz be released
upon certain conditions. (Dkt. 15.) These conditions include
home detention under the oversight of a third-party custodian
and location monitoring. (Id.)
April 19, 2018, the Government filed the instant Motion for
Stay of Release Order and Request for a Detention Hearing.
(Dkt. 16.) Essentially, the Government appeals from the
Magistrate Judge's Order Setting Conditions of Release
(“Release Order”) (Dkt. 15).
15, 2018, the United States Probation Office prepared a
second pretrial services report. At that May 16, 2018
hearing, the Court admitted the second pretrial services
report; heard arguments from counsel, including
Defendant's objection to portions of the report; and
considered Defendant's further proffer of evidence.
Government's Motion is brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3145(a)(1), which provides that “if a person is
ordered released by a magistrate judge, ” then
“the attorney for the Government may file, with the
court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion
for revocation of the order or amendment of the conditions of
release.” An appeal from a release order, like an
appeal from a detention order, “is governed by the
provisions of section 1291 of title 28 and section 3731 of
this title.” 18 U.S.C. §3145(c). Further,
“[t]he appeal shall be determined promptly.”
in considering the Government's appeal from the
Magistrate Judge's Release Order, the district court does
not exercise its appellate jurisdiction. United States v.
Keonig, 912 F.2d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 1990). Rather, the
district court reviews the matter de novo and
without deference to the Magistrate Judge's findings.
This is because the district court, “unlike a court of
appeals, is equipped to explore and redetermine factual
issues if that proves necessary.” Id.
exercising de novo review of the Magistrate
Judge's Release Order, “the district court is not
required to start over in every case . . . and proceed as if
the magistrate's decision and findings do not
exist.” Id. at 1193. At the same time, the
district court “should review the evidence before the
magistrate and make its own independent determination whether
the magistrate's findings are correct, with no
deference.” Id. at 1193. Moreover, the Court
may conduct an additional evidentiary hearing. Id.
“The point is that the district court is to make its
own ‘de novo' determination of facts, whether
different from or an adoption of the findings ...