BILLY J. WILLIAMS, OSB #901366 

United States Attorney 

District of Oregon 

ETHAN D. KNIGHT, OSB #99298 

GEOFFREY A. BARROW 

CRAIG J. GABRIEL, OSB #01257 

Assistant United States Attorneys 

ethan.knight@usdoj.gov

geoffrey.barrow@usdoj.gov 

craig.gabriel@usdoj.gov

1000 SW Third Ave., Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204-2902 

Telephone: (503) 727-1000 

Attorneys for United States of America 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 v. 

PETER SANTILLI, 

 Defendant.

3:16-CR-00051-BR-08

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANT SANTILLI’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REOPEN 

REVIEW OF PRETRIAL 

DETENTION ORDER 

 The United States of America, by Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney for the 

District of Oregon, and through Ethan D. Knight, Geoffrey A. Barrow, and Craig J. Gabriel, 

Assistant United States Attorneys, hereby responds to defendant Santilli’s Motion for Leave to 

Reopen Review of Pretrial Detention Order (ECF No. 187). 

A. Procedural Posture 

Defendant has filed a motion pursuant 18 U.S.C. Section 3142(f)(2)(B) seeking leave to 

reopen and review detention. The Court may grant defendant’s Motion under narrow 

circumstances: 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 225 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 6
Government’s Response to Defendant Santilli’s Motion for Leave to Reopen 

Review of Pretrial Detention Order 

Page 2

The 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 the issue 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)(2)(B) (emphasis added). 

The issue before the Court is whether defendant has demonstrated that there is new 

information that would have a material bearing on his position regarding release such that his 

Motion for Leave to Reopen should be granted. Defendant has presented no such information. 

For the reasons stated below, his Motion should be denied. 

B. Procedural History 

Defendant was arrested on January 26, 2016. On January 27, he made his initial 

appearance on a Complaint charging him with one count of 18 U.S.C. § 372 (Conspiracy to 

Impede Federal Officers Through the Use of Force, Intimidation, or Threats). 

On February 1, 2016, Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman issued an Order detaining 

defendant as a flight risk and as a danger to the community. 

Defendant appealed Judge Beckerman’s Order. On February 2 and 4, 2016, Chief 

District Court Judge Michael Mosman took testimony and heard argument regarding defendant’s 

appeal of Judge Beckerman’s Order. 

On February 4, 2016, Judge Mosman issued an Order detaining defendant as a flight risk 

and as a danger to the community. 

/ / / 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 225 Filed 02/29/16 Page 2 of 6
Government’s Response to Defendant Santilli’s Motion for Leave to Reopen 

Review of Pretrial Detention Order 

Page 3

On February 17, 2016, defendant and co-defendants Ryan Payne, Ammon Bundy, Ryan 

Bundy as well as Cliven Bundy were indicted in the District of Nevada with violations of 18 

U.S.C. §§ 371, 372, 111, 115, 924(c), 1503, 1951, 1952, and 2. (United States v. Bundy, No. 

2:16-CR-46). A writ was issued for defendant by the District of Nevada in that case. If the 

Court were to release defendant in the case pending before this Court, he would be released to 

the custody of the District of Nevada for resolution of the charges in case number 2:16-CR-46. 

Defendant now seeks review of his detention from this Court for a third time. 

C. This Court Should Continue the District Court’s Order of Detention Because 

Defendant Offers No New Evidence That Is Materially Relevant to Detention 

The threshold for what constitutes previously unknown information that has a material 

bearing on detention under 18 U.S.C. Section 3142(f)(2)(B) is exceptionally high. New 

investigation based on previously known facts, new analysis, new arguments, and new ideas 

should not to be considered by this Court in deciding whether to grant defendant’s Motion. 

Courts have rejected requests to reopen detention in cases similar to defendant’s. (See, e.g., 

United States v. Dillon, 938 F.2d 1412 (1st Cir 1991) (defendant not entitled to reopening of 

pretrial detention hearing in order to present affidavits from defendant’s father, police officer, 

friends, and former employers and to present letters from pastor and former hockey coach 

because the information was known to defendant at time of prior hearing). United States v. 

Havens, 487 F. Supp. 2d 335 (W.D.N.Y. 2007) (newly discovered information that defendant did 

not himself produce pornographic images of children, but instead “merely ‘copied’ pre-existing 

images” did not warrant reopening a detention hearing; the possibility that defendant actually 

produced child pornography was only one of several factors warranting the conclusion that 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 225 Filed 02/29/16 Page 3 of 6
Government’s Response to Defendant Santilli’s Motion for Leave to Reopen 

Review of Pretrial Detention Order 

Page 4

pretrial detention was warranted, and its absence from the equation would not have changed the 

court’s mind). 

Defendant has offered no new information, previously unknown to him, that would have 

a material bearing on the issue of whether or not he should be released pending trial in the 

District of Oregon. Defendant identifies one salient fact that he has learned since a second 

judge denied his Motion for Release on February 4, 2016: that, according to defendant, he no 

longer has direct access to firearms. (Def.’s Mot. 3-4). This fact does not meet the standard 

set forth in 18 U.S.C. Section 3142(f)(2)(B). The government never argued that defendant’s 

possession or access to firearms per se was a basis for his continued detention. Rather, the 

government repeatedly argued that defendant was a danger and a flight risk because his prior 

statements (coupled with the information gathered by pretrial services) demonstrated that he 

would not follow any instructions that would ensure his appearance. Therefore, the suggestion 

that defendant no longer has access to firearms—assuming it is accurate—is irrelevant and not 

new. 

Defendant also offers a “new” release plan for the Court’s consideration. (Def.’s Mot. 

4). New iterations of a proposed release plan do not amount to “information that . . . was not 

known to the movant at the time of the hearing.” Rather, defendant’s new proposal amounts to 

nothing more than an effort to recast the same information previously offered to two different 

judges again for this Court. Defendant also provides new analysis of the recorded statements 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 225 Filed 02/29/16 Page 4 of 6
Government’s Response to Defendant Santilli’s Motion for Leave to Reopen 

Review of Pretrial Detention Order 

Page 5

relied upon by Judge Mosman in making his findings regarding detention. This analysis is also 

nothing more than an effort to make new arguments based on previously available information.1

 

Finally, defendant offers additional prior instances where he had interactions with law 

enforcement as evidence of his ability to comply with lawful orders. (Def.’s Mot. 5-6). First, 

this information was all available to defendant prior to his previous two detention hearings and 

therefore should be disregarded. Second, Judge Mosman analyzed many of these interactions 

and concluded it was defendant’s unwillingness to abide by federal release conditions that made 

him an unsuitable candidate for release. 

There is, however, one new fact, that weighs heavily against granting defendant’s 

Motion: his indictment in the District of Nevada. While the charges are simply allegations, 

they do belie defendant’s characterization of his conduct at the Bundy Ranch (Def.’s Mot. 5) and 

further undermine his repeated suggestion that he is being prosecuted for exercising his 

constitutionally protected First Amendment rights. Instead, the allegations provide the Court 

with new evidence that was previously unavailable at the February 4, 2016, hearing that 

defendant engaged in a pattern of dangerous behavior marked by repeated refusals to acquiesce 

to the orders of federal law enforcement officers. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

 

1

 Defendant suggests that he did not have adequate time before the February 4, 2016, hearing to 

review and prepare argument regarding two of defendant’s recorded statements relied up by the 

Court. (Def.’s Mot. 4 n.1). During the February 4 hearing, Judge Mosman asked counsel for 

defendant if he wanted more time to review these with his client, and counsel declined the Court’s 

offer and proceeded with the hearing. (Detention Hr’g Tr. 25-26, Feb. 4, 2016, ECF No. 137). 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 225 Filed 02/29/16 Page 5 of 6
Government’s Response to Defendant Santilli’s Motion for Leave to Reopen 

Review of Pretrial Detention Order 

Page 6

D. Conclusion 

For the reasons stated above, defendant has offered no new information that has a 

material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure 

defendant’s appearance. His Motion should be denied. 

 Dated this 29th day of February 2016. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 BILLY J. WILLIAMS 

 United States Attorney 

 s/ Ethan D. Knight 

 ETHAN D. KNIGHT, OSB #99298 

 GEOFFREY A. BARROW 

 CRAIG J. GABRIEL, OSB #01257 

 Assistant United States Attorneys 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 225 Filed 02/29/16 Page 6 of 6