Opinion ID: 652876
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Confinement or Release on Conditions.

Text: 63 The ultimate statutory issue presented in this case is whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the [defendant] as required and the safety of any other person and the community. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3142(g). We conclude that there are not. The sort of electronic surveillance suggested by the defendants and approved by the district court can be circumvented. See Orena, 986 F.2d at 632. Home detention and electronic monitoring at best 'elaborately replicate a detention facility without the confidence of security such a facility instills.'  Id. (quoting United States v. Gotti, 776 F.Supp. 666, 672 (E.D.N.Y.1991)). If the government does not provide staff to monitor compliance extensively, protection of the community would be left largely to the word of [Millan and Rivera] that [they] will obey the conditions. Id. at 633. The appearance of Millan and Rivera at their forthcoming trial and the protection of the community can be assured only by continued detention. 64 For the reasons stated earlier, furthermore, we conclude that such detention does not violate due process. To summarize, the length of the detention, standing alone, does not constitute a constitutional violation in light of the applicable precedents of this court. In addition, we regard the government's responsibility for delay in this prosecution to be considerably less significant than did the district court, and evaluate the danger to the community that would result from the conditional release of Millan and Rivera as substantially greater, under a proper legal analysis, than the district court's assessment of that danger. Taking these factors into account, together with the concededly high risk of flight posed by Millan and Rivera, we discern no constitutional impediment to their continued detention.