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

1

 This matter can be decided on the recorded February 17, 2006 detention hearing, the

memoranda submitted by the parties and the remainder of the record. In making its decision, the Court

did not consider the testimony of Ms. Walsh. Defendant’s request for oral argument is DENIED. 

ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S DETENTION ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RODNEY ROLLNESS,

Defendant.

Case No. CR06-41L

ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S DETENTION ORDER 

This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s “Motion For Revocation Of

Magistrate Judge’s Detention Order” (Dkt. # 32).1

 The Honorable James P. Donohue, United

States Magistrate Judge, issued the February 17, 2006 detention order after determining that

defendant posed a danger to the community. 

The Court has reviewed the recorded February 17, 2006 detention hearing, defendant’s

motion for revocation of the detention order, the Government’s opposition to revocation of the

detention order and the remainder of the record. It considers de novo the detention order issued

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 55 Filed 03/10/06 Page 1 of 3
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

ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S DETENTION ORDER - 2

by Judge Donohue. U.S. v. Koenig, 912 F.2d 1190, 1191 (9th Cir. 1990). 

The Court will detain defendant prior to trial if it determines “that no condition or

combination of conditions will reasonably assure . . . the safety of any other person and the

community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court considers four

factors when deciding if defendant is a danger to the community: “(1) [t]he nature and

circumstances of the offense charged . . . (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; (3)

the history and characteristics of the person . . . (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to

any person or the community that would be posed by the person’s release.” The Government

bears the burden of establishing “by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant poses a

danger to the community.” United States v. Gebro, 948 F.2d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 1991). 

 The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that defendant poses a danger to the

community. Defendant is charged with numerous crimes including racketeering, conspiracy to

murder in aid of racketeering, murder in aid of racketeering and witness tampering. Although

the Government has indicated that it does not intend to seek the death penalty, defendant’s

murder count is a capital crime. In addition, defendant has a criminal history that includes

convictions for criminal trespass, forgery, carrying a loaded weapon and possession of drug

paraphernalia. Finally, defendant has previously been involved with the Washington Nomads

Chapter of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club. The United States Pretrial Services report

describes an uncharged 1991 incident during which defendant threatened a Washington State

Department of Social and Health Services worker, warning him that he knew Hells Angels who

could kill him. These facts clearly demonstrate that defendant poses a significant risk to

individuals involved in this trial and to the community at large.

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 55 Filed 03/10/06 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S DETENTION ORDER - 3

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant’s “Motion For Revocation Of Magistrate

Judge’s Detention Order” (Dkt. #32) is DENIED. 

DATED this 10th day of March, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 55 Filed 03/10/06 Page 3 of 3