USA v. Adams et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
) 	MOTION FOR REVIEW AND
vs. 	) 	RECONSIDERATION OF DETENTION
)
Kaycee Remone Heard, 	) 	Case No. 1:20-cr-068
)
Defendant. 	)
The Court ordered Defendant detained following a detention hearing on June 18, 2020.
(Doc. No. 176). On July 20, 2020, Defendant filed a motion requesting to be conditionally released
to Teen Challenge, asserting that the structure provided by Teen Challenge would mitigate any
danger to the community and risk of flight. 	(Doc. No. 256). 	The United States disagreed,
emphasizing, among other things in its response, the quantities of drugs allegedly trafficked by
Defendant and Defendant’s lack of meaningful ties to this district. (Doc. No. 272). Finding the
United States’ arguments persuasive, the Court denied Defendant’s motion.
While Defendant’s desire for treatment is commendable, the availability of
inpatient 	treatment 	is 	not 	enough 	to 	mitigate 	the 	significant 	risks 	to
community 	safety 	and 	future 	nonappearance 	present 	here. 	The 	substances
allegedly 	involved 	here 	are 	highly 	dangerous 	both 	to 	Defendant 	and 	the
community at large, and Defendant’s failures to follow prior court orders raise
significant doubts as to future compliance. Nothing in Defendant’s motion
overcomes the statutory presumption of detention applicable in this case. Even
if the presumption were rebutted, the record as a whole shows there are no
available conditions that will reasonably assure Defendant’s presence at future
proceedings and the safety of the community.
(Doc No. 283).
On October 21, 2020, Defendant filed a Motion for Review and Reconsideration of
Detention. (Doc. No. 437). He renews his request to be released Teen Challenge. In so doing he
1
Case 1:20-cr-00068-DMT Document 471 Filed 11/03/20 Page 1 of 3

reasserts that the structure provided by Teen Challenge adequately mitigates any danger to the
community or risk of flight. Additionally, he asserts that his acceptance by Teen Challenge for
treatment serves to rebut the presumption of detention in this case. Third, stressing that he has now
been in custody for five months with no prospect of a trial on the immediate horizon (as several of
his co-defendants are still at large), he asserts that the interests of justice weigh in favor of his
conditional release. Fourth, he asserts that “[i]t is unlikely that discovery has been fully provided
to the Defense.” (Doc. No. 438).
On November 2, 2020, the United States filed a response in opposition to Defendant’s
motion. (Doc. No. 467). It asserts there has been no material change in Defendant’s circumstances
to warrant his release. It also takes exception to Defendant’s assertion that it is failing to meet it
discovery obligations.
The issue presently before the court is Defendant’s custodial status, not one of discovery.
Should Defendant believes that the United States is withholding discovery to which he is entitled,
he should file the appropriate motion.
Turning to the matter of Defendant’s custodial status, the court finds there have been no
material changes in his circumstances to warrant his release at this time. The court is not persuaded
that the mere availability of treatment at Teen Challenge is sufficient to rebut the presumption of
detention or that the particulars of Teen Challenge’s program sufficiently mitigate the dangers to the
community or risk of flight in this case. 	In any event, as it previously explained, even if the
Defendant can rebut the presumption of detention, the totality of factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §
3142(g) still weigh against release. Finally, in regards to Defendant’s complaints regarding the
duration of his pretrial detention, the court simply notes that Defendant has not moved for a
2
Case 1:20-cr-00068-DMT Document 471 Filed 11/03/20 Page 2 of 3

severance. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Review and Reconsideration of Detention (Doc.
No. 437) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 3rd day of November, 2020.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
3
Case 1:20-cr-00068-DMT Document 471 Filed 11/03/20 Page 3 of 3