2001 WL 1688908 (D.Mass.)

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

Richard C. REID

No. 01-M-1124-JGD.

Dec. 28, 2001.

RELATED REFERENCES:  U.S. v. Reid, 206 F.Supp.2d 132 (D.Mass. Jun. 11, 2002) (No. CR.A. 02-10013-WGY)

U.S. v. Reid, 211 F.Supp.2d 366 (D.Mass. Jul. 17, 2002) (No. CR.A. 02-10013-WGY)

U.S. v. Reid, 214 F.Supp.2d 84 (D.Mass. Jul. 26, 2002) (No. CRIM.A. 02-10013-WGY)

U.S. v. Reid, 369 F.3d 619 (1st Cir. May 27, 2004) (No. 03-1159)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON ISSUE OF PROBABLE CAUSE AND ON GOVERNMENT’s MOTION FOR DETENTION

JUDGE:  DEIN, Magistrate J.

I. GOVERNMENT’s MOTION FOR DETENTION

[*1]  The defendant has been charged in a criminal complaint with interfering with the performance and duties of flight crew members or flight attendants of an aircraft by assault and intimidation in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 46504. An initial appearance was held on December 24, 2001, at which time the government moved for detention under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(f)(1)(A) and (f)(2)(A) on the grounds that the defendant posed a danger to the community and a serious risk of flight. A probable cause and detention hearing was held on December 28, 2001, at which time the defendant was represented by counsel. Based on all the evidence I find that the government has met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community, and by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required. Therefore, pretrial detention is warranted. I also find that there is probable cause to believe that the offense charged was committed and that the defendant committed the offense. The defendant is to be bound over for further proceedings in the District Court.

II. THE BAIL REFORM ACT

A. Under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (“The Bail Reform Act”), the judicial officer shall order that, pending trial, the defendant either be (1) released on his or her own recognizance or upon execution of an unsecured bond; (2) released on a condition or combination of conditions; (3) temporarily detained to permit revocation of conditional release, deportation or exclusion; or (4) detained. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(a).

Under § 3142(e), a defendant may be ordered detained pending trial if the judicial officer finds by clear and convincing evidence after a detention hearing “that no condition or combination of conditions (set forth under § 3142(b) or (c)) will reasonably assure the safety of any other person or the community …,” or if the judicial officer finds by a preponderance of the evidence after a detention hearing “that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required….” See United States v. Patriarca, 948 F.2d 789, 792-93 (1 st Cir.1991).

B. The government is entitled to move for detention on grounds of danger to the community in a case, such as the present one, which involves a crime of violence within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3156(a)(4). Additionally, the government or the court sua sponte may move for, or set, a detention hearing where there is a serious risk that the defendant will flee, or where there is a serious risk of obstruction of justice or threats to potential witnesses. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f).

C. In determining whether there are conditions of release which will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community, or whether pretrial detention is warranted, the judicial officer must take into account and weigh information concerning—

[*2]  (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 accused;

(3) the history and characteristics of the person, including—

(a) the person’s character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning appearance at court proceedings; and

(b) whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, the defendant was on probation, on parole, or other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under Federal, State or local law; and

(4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any other person or the community that would be posed by the person’s release.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).

III. DISCUSSION OF WHETHER DETENTION IS WARRANTED

“Detention determinations must be made individually and, in the final analysis, must be based on the evidence which is before the court regarding the particular defendant.” U.S. v. Tortora, 922 F.2d 880, 888 (1 st Cir.1990), and cases cited. Based on the record before me, I find that pretrial detention is necessary.

A. The Offense Charged And Weight Of The Evidence

The charges against the defendant arise out of an incident on December 22, 2001 on American Airlines flight number AA63, and the evidence against the defendant is very strong. While the aircraft was en route from Charles DeGaulle Airport in Paris, France, bound for Miami, Florida, there was a disturbance on board which resulted in the aircraft being diverted to Boston, Massachusetts. According to the flight attendant involved in the incident, about one and a half hours into the flight, she smelled what she thought was a match. Reid was pointed out to her, and when she confronted him she saw him put a match into his mouth. She went to alert the captain over the intercom system, and when she returned a few moments later, she saw him light another match. It appeared that he was attempting to set fire to the inner tongue of his sneaker, from which a wire was protruding. A struggle ensued between the flight attendant and the defendant during which the flight attendant was shoved into the bulkhead, and pushed to the floor. As the first flight attendant got up and ran to get water, a second flight attendant joined the struggle, and was bitten by the defendant on the thumb. The first flight attendant returned and threw water in the defendant’s face. Several passengers came to the aid of the flight attendants and restrained the defendant for the duration of the flight. They also injected him with sedatives which were carried onboard.

Based on preliminary laboratory analysis, it appears that each of the defendant’s sneakers contained a “functioning improvised explosive device,” i.e., a “homemade bomb.” If the sneakers had been placed against the wall of the aircraft and exploded, the devices had the capacity to blow a hole in the fuselage.

[*3]  Probable Cause: Based on the foregoing, I find that there is probable cause to believe that the offense charged (interference with the performance and duties of flight crew members or flight attendants of an aircraft by assault and intimidation) was committed and that the defendant committed the offense. The defendant is to be bound over for further proceedings in the District Court.

B. History And Characteristics Of The Defendant

The history and characteristics of the defendant are not conducive to release. The defendant, Richard Colvin Reid, a/k/a Abdul Raheem, age 28, was born on August 12, 1973 in Farmborough, England. He has no permanent residence and reported that he was most recently living in Paris, France, in different hotels. The defendant claims to have resided in Europe all his life in different locations for short periods of time. He is single and has no children. The defendant states that he was never “officially” employed, although he has worked as a construction worker and kitchen helper for different restaurants and construction companies in Europe for brief periods of time.

The defendant’s mother and half brother live in England. His father also lives in England, although the defendant has not had any contact with him for several years. The defendant reports having no assets and no liabilities.

The defendant is not under a doctor’s care and is not taking any medication. He has never been treated by a psychiatrist. According to the defendant, he has a criminal record from when he was a “youth,” including a period of incarceration. Interpol reports a birth date of August 11, 1973 for Richard Colvin Reid, and convictions for theft on thirteen occasions, offenses against persons on one occasion, and two offenses against property. No details as yet have been obtained.

C. Risk of Flight

The government has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that no combination of conditions will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance at future court proceedings. The defendant has no ties to the United States and, in fact, has no permanent residence. He has no permanent employment and has traveled extensively throughout Europe without putting down roots. He claims to have used an alias in the past. He is facing a serious sentence if convicted of the crime charged, and the evidence is strong, thereby creating a strong impetus to flee. Under such circumstances, there are no conditions nor combinations of conditions that would reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance as required.

D. Danger to the Community

In view of the conclusion regarding risk of flight, the court does not need to consider the matter of danger to the community, since it is “well established that the government can keep a defendant in custody to secure his presence at trial.” United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 380 (1 st Cir.1985), and cases cited. Nevertheless, I conclude that the government has met its burden of proof, by clear and convincing evidence, that there are no conditions or combination of conditions of release which will reasonably assure the safety of other persons and the community. In addition to the defendant’s violent and assaultive behavior toward the flight attendants, the evidence is that the defendant was trying to set off an explosive device on a flight with approximately 183 passengers and 14 crew members onboard. He acted with callous disregard for the safety of others, and, in fact, appears to have intended to cause them all serious harm, if not death. Under such circumstances, the only conclusion is that if the defendant is released he poses an unacceptable and uncontrollable risk to the safety of others.

IV. ORDER OF DETENTION

[*4]  IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED that the defendant be DETAINED pending trial, and it is further Ordered—

(1) That the defendant be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal;

(2) That the defendant be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel; and

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request by an attorney for the government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which the defendant is detained and confined deliver the defendant to an authorized Deputy United States Marshal for the purpose of any appearance in connection with a court proceeding.