Defendant’s Motion to Revoke Detention Order page 1

Paul Hood, OSB 132271

1001 SW Fifth Ave, Suite 1415

Portland, OR 97204

Telephone: 541-513-7545

Facsimile: 855-366-3359

paul@paulhoodlaw.com

Attorney for Defendant Travis Cox

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

TRAVIS COX,

 Defendant.

)

) 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. 3:16-cr-00051-BR-24

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

REVOKE DETENTION ORDER

MOTION AND CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL

Travis Cox, through undersigned counsel Paul Hood, respectfully moves this 

Court for an Order revoking the detention Order entered by Magistrate Judge Paul 

Papak on April 26, 2016, ECF 462. This motion is based upon evidence that was 

not available at the time of the April 26 Order as well as a release plan that had not 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 633 Filed 06/02/16 Page 1 of 8
Travis Cox Motion to Revoke Detention Order pg. 2 Paul Hood, Attorney at Law, LLC

1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1415

Portland, OR 97201

been developed or investigated as of April 26. Undersigned counsel has conferred 

with Assistant United States Attorney Ethan Knight regarding this motion. The 

government opposes this motion. 

MEMORANDUM

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 26, 2016, Travis Cox was arraigned before Magistrate Judge Paul 

Papak. Counsel Paul Hood was present for the defendant, AUSA Ethan Knight 

was present for the government, and Officer Noe Rios was present from the 

pretrial services office. At that arraignment, it was the intent of defense counsel to 

set over the detention hearing pending additional investigation and the possible 

development of a suitable pretrial release plan. Defense counsel later learned that 

the April 26 appearance was treated as a detention hearing and that an Order 

affirming detention was entered on that date. Upon learning this, defense counsel 

consulted with Mr. Cox. Rather than returning to the Magistrate Court to litigate 

the procedural history of the April 26 court appearance, defendant and defense 

counsel agreed to move forward before this Court. This approach was chosen in 

part to expedite the review of detention and to focus upon the development of a 

suitable release plan. These background details are in no way meant as a slight to 

the Magistrate Court. Defense counsel may be at fault for not adequately 

communicating his intent at the arraignment. In any case, no evidence related to 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 633 Filed 06/02/16 Page 2 of 8
Travis Cox Motion to Revoke Detention Order pg. 3 Paul Hood, Attorney at Law, LLC

1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1415

Portland, OR 97201

pretrial release was presented at the April 26 arraignment. No arguments were 

made by either side regarding the issue of detention, and, perhaps most 

importantly, pretrial services had not yet interviewed Mr. Cox or investigated the 

possibility of a suitable release plan. 

II. THE RELEASE PLAN

A. Residence

Travis Cox is 21 years old and from central Oregon. He was twenty at the time 

of the allegations in this case. If permitted pretrial release, he would reside with 

his mother, Diane Cox, at her home. That address has previously been provided to 

Officer Noe Rios of the pretrial services office. Ms. Cox is employed by Fire and 

Rescue of Redmond, Oregon and has no criminal history. Defense counsel is in 

regular contact with Ms. Cox. She is supportive of pretrial release for her son and 

will allow him to return to her home. It is defense counsel’s understanding that 

Officer Rios of the pretrial services office has confirmed the availability of this 

residence for Mr. Cox. 

B. Employment

If allowed pretrial release, Travis Cox could return to work for his former 

employer, a regional pizza restaurant chain in central Oregon. Defense counsel has 

talked to the owner of that business to confirm that Mr. Cox can return to work. 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 633 Filed 06/02/16 Page 3 of 8
Travis Cox Motion to Revoke Detention Order pg. 4 Paul Hood, Attorney at Law, LLC

1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1415

Portland, OR 97201

Defense counsel believes that Officer Rios has also confirmed this employment 

plan.

C. Other Conditions

Defense counsel has discussed possible conditions of release with Officer 

Rios. If Mr. Cox is permitted pretrial release, Mr. Cox understands that there will 

be conditions placed upon him, which could include a curfew, random drug tests, 

and an agreement by his mother with the United States Office of Pretrial Services 

that she will act as a responsible party. Mr. Cox agrees to those conditions and 

will abide by them as well as other conditions that this Court may impose.

III. THE LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 18 USC § 3142, a defendant should be released pending trial unless 

“no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance 

of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.” 

United States v. Hir, 517 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 

3142 (e)). Mr. Cox is charged only in Count 1 (Conspiracy to Impede Officers of 

the United States under 18 USC § 372) and Count 2 (Possession of Firearms and 

Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities under 18 USC §§ 930(b) and 2). He is 

not charged in Count 3 (Use and Carry of a Firearm in Relation to a Crime of 

Violence under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A) and 2). As a result, there is no 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 633 Filed 06/02/16 Page 4 of 8
Travis Cox Motion to Revoke Detention Order pg. 5 Paul Hood, Attorney at Law, LLC

1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1415

Portland, OR 97201

presumption in favor of detention. The government must prove a serious flight 

risk or a safety risk, in order to justify continued detention.

To meet that burden, the government must prove flight risk by a 

preponderance of the evidence and danger to the community or an individual by 

clear and convincing evidence. United States v. Gebro, 948 F.2d 1118, 1121 (9th 

Cir. 1991); United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, 1406 (9th Cir. 1985). In the 

context of pretrial detention, The Ninth Circuit’s “preponderance of the evidence” 

burden is greater than the usual “tips the scales slightly” test applied in civil cases. 

United States v. Chen, 820 F.Supp. 1205, 1208 (N.D. Cal. 1992). A standard of 

“clear preponderance” must be employed to give effect to the principle that doubts 

regarding the propriety of release be resolved in favor of the defendant. Id. (citing 

Motamedi, 767 F.2d at 1405-06).

When determining if pretrial detention is necessary, the Court is to consider:

the nature and circumstances of the offense charged; the weight of the evidence 

against the person; the history and characteristics of the person; and the nature and 

seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by 

the person’s release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).

IV. MR. COX SHOULD BE RELEASED

The Supreme Court has noted that the “traditional right to freedom before 

conviction permits the unhampered preparation of a defense and serves to prevent 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 633 Filed 06/02/16 Page 5 of 8
Travis Cox Motion to Revoke Detention Order pg. 6 Paul Hood, Attorney at Law, LLC

1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1415

Portland, OR 97201

the infliction of punishment prior to conviction.” Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 4 

(1951). The Court further observed that “unless this right to bail before trial is 

preserved, the presumption of innocence secured only after centuries of struggle, 

would lose its meaning.” Id. The Supreme Court has also noted that “[i]n our 

society, liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the 

carefully limited exception.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 755 (1987). 

In keeping with this traditional right to freedom before and until conviction, under 

the Bail Reform Act, Congress directed that “[o]nly in rare circumstances should 

release be denied, and doubts about the propriety of release should be resolved in 

the defendant’s favor.” Gebro, 948 F.2d at 1121. The statute expressly provides 

that a defendant should be released on his own recognizance unless he represents a 

serious flight risk or a danger to the community. 18 U.S.C § 3142(b); United States 

v. Eischeid, 315 F. Supp. 2d 1033, 1037 (D. Ariz. 2003) (finding that the threat of 

flight must be great). 

In an effort to justify detention, the government will likely point to the fact that 

Mr. Cox delayed turning himself in on this case. On February 12, 2016, Mr. Cox’s 

name was added to the list of publically disclosed defendants in this case. Mr. Cox 

turned himself in on April 11, 2016 in Cedar City, Utah, at the Iron County 

Sheriff’s Office. In the government’s view, this delay in voluntary surrender 

suggests that Mr. Cox is a flight risk. Of course, the first and most important point 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 633 Filed 06/02/16 Page 6 of 8
Travis Cox Motion to Revoke Detention Order pg. 7 Paul Hood, Attorney at Law, LLC

1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1415

Portland, OR 97201

is that Mr. Cox did in fact turn himself in and did so peacefully and without 

incident. Also, he turned himself in shortly after having his first conversation with 

undersigned defense counsel. 

On February 23, 2016, undersigned defense counsel was contacted by the 

Federal Public Defenders Office about the possibility of representing Mr. Cox. At 

that time, Mr. Cox was not in custody, and undersigned counsel had no contact 

information for him, no information on his location, and no names or contact 

information for any of his family members. Undersigned counsel sought contact 

information from the government, but none was provided. Fortunately, in early 

April, Mr. Cox’s mother discovered that undersigned defense counsel was 

available to represent Mr. Cox and then contacted undersigned defense counsel. 

Subsequently, on or about April 7, 2016, undersigned defense counsel spoke to Mr. 

Cox for the first time and addressed the need for him to turn himself in. On April 

11, 2016, Mr. Cox again contacted defense counsel and turned himself in without 

incident. In fact, Mr. Cox arrived at the Iron County Sheriff’s Office at a time 

when no one was present in the office and waited in the parking lot until a deputy

arrived in a patrol vehicle. 

These actions do not suggest that Mr. Cox is a flight risk. Instead, the delay in 

turning himself in is consistent with Mr. Cox’s youth and lack of experience in the 

criminal justice system. In simple terms, he was frightened. Once he received 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 633 Filed 06/02/16 Page 7 of 8
Travis Cox Motion to Revoke Detention Order pg. 8 Paul Hood, Attorney at Law, LLC

1001 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1415

Portland, OR 97201

legal counsel he decided to surrender himself to the government. In part, he did 

that because he wants to have a life. He wants to get married, settle down, and 

have a family. He understands he cannot realistically achieve that goal or any of 

his other aspirations with an active federal warrant. 

In light of the nature and circumstances of the offense; the weight of the 

evidence; Mr. Cox’s history and characteristics; and the controlling issues of flight 

risk and danger to the community, the government cannot meet its burden to justify 

the continued detention of Mr. Cox. Even when considering the evidence in a light 

most favorable to the government, Mr. Cox is not a ringleader or one of the 

original organizers and planners of the occupation. At this time, over half of the 

defendants in this case have been granted pretrial release, and Travis Cox should 

be among them. He has family and friends in the areas where he would reside and 

work, if permitted pretrial release. He does not present a flight risk or a danger to 

the community, and pretrial release conditions are available to address any 

remaining concerns.

 

DATED this 2nd day of June 2016. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Paul Hood 

PAUL HOOD, OSB No. 132271

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 633 Filed 06/02/16 Page 8 of 8