Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cr-00382/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cr-00382-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clarence Trapps
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

USA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLARENCE TRAPPS,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:15-cr-00382-JSW-1 (DMR)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO 

REOPEN DETENTION HEARING

Re: Dkt. Nos. 40 and 41

Defendant Clarence Trapps filed a letter requesting that the court reopen his detention 

hearing based on “new factual developments.” Docket No. 40. The government opposes the 

request. Docket No. 41. The Bail Reform Act provides that a detention hearing “may be 

reopened, before or after a determination by the judicial officer, at any time before trial if the 

judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the 

hearing and that has a material bearing on whether there are conditions of release that will 

reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and 

the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). In support of his request, Mr. Trapps points to the fact that 

he has abstained from substance abuse during the past six months of incarceration, and that he 

recently was released for several hours without incident in order to attend his grandmother's 

memorial service.

The proffered information was not known to Mr. Trapps at the time of the original hearing, 

and thereby satisfies the first requirement for reopening. However, having carefully reviewed 

Judge White's order revoking release, (Docket No. 25), this court concludes that Mr. Trapps has 

not demonstrated that the new information "has a material bearing" on whether appropriate release 

conditions exist. In finding that the government met its burden of establishing by clear and 

Case 4:15-cr-00382-JSW Document 42 Filed 02/08/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

convincing evidence that Mr. Trapps poses a danger to the community, Judge White noted Mr. 

Trapps' significant criminal history, and the fact that he was arrested in this case shortly after 

being released following a lengthy prison term imposed for offenses similar to the current charges. 

Judge White also noted Mr. Trapps’ numerous parole violations and prior convictions related to 

resisting arrest and obstructing police officers. Judge White found that this history demonstrated 

that Mr. Trapps could not be trusted to comply with conditions of release, including placement in 

a residential treatment program. In light of the findings supporting Judge White's revocation 

order, six months of incarceration plus several hours of a successful temporary release do not 

amount to changed circumstances warranting the reopening of Mr. Trapps' detention hearing. The 

court therefore denies Mr. Trapps’ request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2016 

______________________________________

 DONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cr-00382-JSW Document 42 Filed 02/08/16 Page 2 of 2