IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

 EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America, :

 

Plaintiff, :

 

v. : Case No. 2:11-mj-0371 

 

Jamie John Lebel, : Magistrate Judge Kemp

Defendant. :

 

 DETENTION ORDER

The defendant, Jamie John Lebel, accompanied by counsel,

appeared for a detention hearing on May 13, 2011. After the

hearing, the Court decided that the defendant should be detained

pending further proceedings. This order explains why.

On May 10, 2011, defendant was charged in a criminal

complaint with traveling in interstate commerce and failing to

register as required by SORNA (the Sex Offender Registration and

Notification Act, 18 U.S.C. §2250(a)). He waived a preliminary

hearing, so the Court is entitled to conclude that probable cause

exists to believe he committed the offense, which involved his

travel from Florida to Ohio and his failure to register as a sex

offender once in Ohio, as well his use of an address at which he

did not live when he last registered in Florida. As to the issue

of detention, the United States has the burden of proof,

explained as follows.

Under 18 U.S.C. §3142(f), a detention hearing may be

held in a case involving, inter alia, a serious risk that the

person to be detained will obstruct or attempt to obstruct

justice, or threaten, injure, or intimidate, or attempt to

threaten, injure, or intimidate, a prospective witness or

juror. Such a hearing may also be held if there is a serious

risk that the person sought to be detained will flee. At the

hearing, it is the task of the presiding judicial officer to

Case: 2:11-mj-00371-TPK Doc #: 11 Filed: 05/25/11 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
determine whether any condition or combination of conditions

of release "will reasonably assure the appearance of the

person as required and the safety of any other person and the

community...."

 Following the hearing, "if the judicial officer

determines that no such conditions exists, such judicial

officer shall order the detention of the person before

trial." Id. If detention is based upon a finding that no

condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure

the safety of any other person in the community, such a

finding must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Proof that the person sought to be detained is a serious risk

of flight must be by a preponderance of the evidence.

 18 U.S.C. §3142(g) requires the judicial officer to

consider available information concerning (1) the nature and

circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the

offense is a crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug;

(2) the weight of the evidence against the person; (3) the

history and characteristics of the person, and (4) the nature

and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community

that would be posed by the person's release. See, e.g.,

United States v. Arvanitis, 667 F. Supp. 693 (N.D. Ill.

1987). Detention may be ordered based upon a finding that

the defendant is likely to continue to engage in criminal

activity which poses a threat either to the community or to

the safety of particular persons, and such circumstances are

not limited to proof that the defendant poses a serious risk

either to obstruct justice or to intimidate or injure a

prospective witness or juror. See, e.g., United States v.

Daniels, 772 F.2d 382 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v.

Yeaple, 605 F.Supp. 85 (M.D. Pa. 1985).

 According to the Pretrial Services report, Mr. Lebel was a

-2-

Case: 2:11-mj-00371-TPK Doc #: 11 Filed: 05/25/11 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
resident of Ohio for only a few weeks prior to his arrest. He

has lived in Florida (including a term of imprisonment from 2000-

2006) since 1994. He also served in the Marines. He has no real

ties to Ohio other than having lived for a short period of time

with his girlfriend and a friend of hers in Jackson County. He

has not been employed since December, 2009.

The sex offense which triggered the defendant’s reporting

requirement was committed in Florida in 2000. He was eventually

released from prison but committed a probation violation and

served an additional 21 months in jail. From evidence introduced

at the hearing, it appears that after his most recent release

from jail, he registered as a sex offender at the address of his

girlfriend’s ex-husband but never lived there, and then came to

Ohio because he would have a place to live.

There are very few positive factors in the Pretrial Services

report, and the Pretrial Services office recommended detention. 

Defendant did fail to register, which raises concerns about a

flight risk, he has a history of violating probation, he has a

serious sex offense conviction, and he has no stable living

environment, no employment, and no ties to Ohio. Under these

circumstances, the Court could not envision any release

conditions which would adequately guard against either a risk of

flight or a danger to the community, and it concluded that the

United States had met its burden of proof. For these reasons,

the Court granted the United States’ motion to detain the

defendant without bond. 

The defendant was advised of his right to seek review of

this order by a United States District Judge pursuant to 18

U.S.C. §3145(b).

/s/ Terence P. Kemp 

United States Magistrate Judge

-3-

Case: 2:11-mj-00371-TPK Doc #: 11 Filed: 05/25/11 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>