United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Chattanooga
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER H. STEGER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
MCCROSKEY (“Defendant”) came before the Court for
an initial appearance on June 14, 2019, in accordance with
Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure on the
Petition for Warrant for Offender Under Supervision
being sworn in due form of law, Defendant was informed of his
privilege against self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment
and his right to counsel under the 6th Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
Court determined Defendant wished to be represented by an
attorney and that he qualified for the appointment of an
attorney to represent him at government expense.
Consequently, the Court APPOINTED attorney
Keith Davis to represent Defendant.
was furnished with a copy of the Petition, and had an
opportunity to review that document with his attorney. The
Court determined that Defendant was able to read and
understand the Petition with the assistance of his counsel.
In addition, AUSA Kevin Brown explained to Defendant the
specific charges contained in the Petition. Defendant
acknowledged he understood the charges in the Petition.
Government moved Defendant be detained pending disposition of
the Petition or further Order of this Court. The Court
explained Defendant's right to a preliminary hearing and
detention hearing and what those hearings entail. After
conferring with his counsel, Defendant requested a
preliminary hearing and a detention hearing. Neither party
requested additional time to prepare, so the preliminary
hearing and detention hearing took place immediately.
Government relied upon the allegations in the Petition [Doc.
228] and the testimony of U.S. Probation Officer Courtney
Hambel. The Petition includes a recitation of the violations
of conditions of supervision committed by Defendant, to
wit, Defendant must not illegally possess a controlled
substance; Defendant must refrain from any unlawful use of a
controlled substance; Defendant must submit to one drug test
within 15 days of release from imprisonment and at least two
periodic drug tests thereafter, as determined by the Court;
Defendant shall answer truthfully all inquiries by the
probation officer and follow the instructions of the
probation officer; Defendant shall notify the probation
officer within 72 hours of any change in residence or
employment; Defendant shall not purchase, possess or use any
narcotic or other controlled substance except as prescribed
by a physician; Defendant shall not frequent places where
controlled substances are illegally sold, used, distributed
or administered; Defendant shall participate in a program of
testing and treatment for drugs as directed by the probation
officer until such time as Defendant is released from the
program; and Defendant shall participate in a program of
mental health treatment, as directed by the probation
officer, until such time as Defendant is released from the
program by the probation officer.
Petition further sets forth a summary of facts, which facts
were testified to by USPO Hambel. In summary, Defendant
tested positive for marijuana use on five separate occasions
and, on at least four of those occasions, denied illegal drug
use to his probation officer; Defendant failed to report for
mandatory drug tests on nine separate occasions; and
Defendant failed to attend counseling sessions. Further, USPO
Hambell testified that Defendant has been charged in state
court with a physical assault on his girlfriend.
Court finds that the evidence establishes that probable cause
exists to support the various violations of conditions of
supervised release specified in the Petition [Doc. 228].
respect to the detention hearing, the undersigned is
obligated to start with the rebuttable presumption that
Defendant is a danger to any other person or to the community
and that he poses a risk of flight. Based on the evidence
adduced at the hearing, the Court concludes that Defendant
violated the conditions of supervised release. The Court
further finds that Defendant has not carried the burden of
establishing by clear and convincing evidence that he does
not pose a danger to any other person or to the community.
The Court does not find that Defendant is a flight risk.
the Court GRANTED the Government's oral
motion to detain Defendant pending disposition of the
Petition or further order of this Court.
therefore, ORDERED that:
evidence establishes that probable cause exists to support
the violations of supervised release ...