UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Crim. No.: 14-20805 

 Honorable John Corbett O’Meara 

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford 

 

ALONZO RAY LINLEY, 

 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO 

REVOKE DEFENDANT LINLEY’S BOND, AND AMENDING THE 

CONDITIONS OF RELEASE 

 The government filed a motion to revoke Defendant Alonzo Ray 

Linley’s bond, which was imposed on November 27, 2014. [16]. The 

Honorable John Corbett O’Meara referred the motion to this Court for a 

hearing and determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). A hearing 

was held on February 24, 2015, at which time the Court denied the 

government’s motion but amended Linley’s bond conditions. 

 The complaint against Linley indicated that, on November 19, 2014, 

Detroit Police Officers found him to be in possession of a firearm, 

marijuana, plastic bags and a digital scale. Linley was charged with being 

a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). [1]. 

Magistrate Judge David R. Grand held a detention hearing on December 5, 

5:14-cr-20805-JCO-EAS Doc # 20 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 47
2 

2014, and released Linley on a $10,000 unsecured bond. [8-9]. Thereafter, 

Linley was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm, as well as 

for possessing with intent to distribute marijuana (21 U.S.C. § 841) and 

possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (18 U.S.C. § 

924(c)). [10]. 

On January 24, 2015, Linley was arrested by the Dearborn Heights 

police department for operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and 

driving with a suspended license. The following day, which was a Sunday, 

Linley called his pretrial services officer, Allison Bowers, and left her a 

voicemail message indicating that he had a law enforcement contact. 

Officer Bowers tried calling Linley, but he did not return her call. He did 

report as directed on February 10, 2015, and admitted after some prodding 

that his arrest was for operating while under the influence of alcohol. As a 

result of the arrest, Judge O’Meara amended Linley’s bond to require that 

he refrain from alcohol, and Linley was placed on a random alcohol 

monitoring program. [15]. 

In its motion, the government alleges that Linley’s bond should be 

revoked because: (1) now that he has been indicted for violating § 924(c), 

he is presumed to be a flight risk and a danger to the community under 18 

U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(B); and, (2) when driving under the influence of 

5:14-cr-20805-JCO-EAS Doc # 20 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 48
3 

alcohol, he violated the condition of his bond that he “not commit any 

offense in violation of federal, state, or local law.” [8, Pg ID 11]. 

This Court will not consider the fact that the government indicted 

Linley for violating § 924(c) after he was released on bond as a basis for 

detaining him. The facts underlying the § 924(c) charge were known to the 

government and incorporated in the complaint when it was filed, and it 

would be ill-advised to consider that more severe charge as a basis for 

revoking Linley’s bond. See United States v. Andrews, 633 F.2d 449 (6th 

Cir. 1980) (en banc) (decision to charge defendants more severely after 

they were released on bond raised possibility of prosecutorial 

vindictiveness). The Court hastens to note that it does not believe that the 

government acted vindictively; government counsel asserts that she 

advised Judge Grand at the original detention hearing that Linley might be 

indicted for violating § 924(c), and defense counsel did not dispute that 

assertion. Nonetheless, caution in not prejudicing Linley by detaining him 

based upon the subsequently imposed § 924(c) charge is warranted. 

There is, however, probable cause to believe that Linley operated a 

vehicle under the influence of alcohol, in violation of the condition of his 

release that he not violate state law. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b), 

when a defendant violates a condition of pretrial release, a judicial officer 

5:14-cr-20805-JCO-EAS Doc # 20 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 49
4 

may amend the conditions of release if such conditions will assure that the 

defendant will not be a flight risk or danger to the community. 

The Court does not believe that Linley presents a risk of flight 

because he called Officer Bowers the day after he was arrested and 

reported his police contact; he has ceased using marijuana, although he 

previously used it daily; and he appeared for the hearing on February 24 

despite facing the possibility of being detained. Linley does present a 

danger to the community, but home detention with radio frequency 

monitoring (in addition to the previously imposed conditions) would 

minimize the risk to the community. While under home detention, Linley 

may leave his residence only for verified work, court and medical purposes. 

Additionally, Linley must report as directed three times per month as a 

result of the condition requiring him to participate in a random alcohol 

monitoring program. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the government’s motion to revoke 

Linley’s detention, and AMENDS the conditions of his release as set forth 

above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 24, 2015 s/Elizabeth A. Stafford 

Detroit, Michigan ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

5:14-cr-20805-JCO-EAS Doc # 20 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 50
5 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS

 The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which 

provides a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of 

this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district 

judge under 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1). 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon 

counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF 

System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on February 24, 2015. 

s/Marlena Williams 

MARLENA WILLIAMS 

Case Manager 

5:14-cr-20805-JCO-EAS Doc # 20 Filed 02/24/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 51