Case 1:10-mj-00140-MJK Document 13 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
v.
)
Criminal No. 10-mj-140-MJK
)
MATTHEW DEHART,
)
)
Defendant
)
DETENTION ORDER
On August 9, 2010, I conducted an initial appearance in accordance with Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure 5, 5.1, 20 and 18 U.S.C. Section 3142(f) of the Bail Reform Act. The
defendant was present and represented by counsel. The matter was continued for further
proceedings held before me on August 11, 2010.
Part I - Findings of Fact
[X] (1) The defendant is charged with an offense described in 18 U.S.C. Section
3142(f)(1) (E) , a felony involving a minor victim.
[x] (2) There is a serious risk that the defendant will not appear.
Defendant is charged in a Complaint with one count of knowingly employing, using,
persuading, enticing or coercing a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of
producing visual depictions, knowing or having reason to believe that such visual depictions
would be transported in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§
2251. The charged
offense gives rise to rebuttable presumption on the issue of detention as set forth under 18 U.S.C.
§
3 142(e).
Part II - Written Statement of Reasons for Detention
TRUE COPY
ATTEST; Linda L. Jacobson. Cierk
:y.
ä(I-mj-O4O62 Document 3 Piled 08/16/10 Page 3 of 9 PagelD #: 13
Case 1:1O-mj-00140-MJK Document 13 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 3
On August 11, 2010, following his initial appearance, defendant appeared before me for
hearing on the issues of identity and production of the warrant, preliminary hearing, and
detention. The defendant waived hearing on the first two issues and a detention hearing was held
before me, rather than in the charging district, at the defendant’s election. Defendant produced
evidence to rebut the presumption, noting his lack of prior criminal record, his close ties to his
family in Indiana, and the availability of his father to serve as a third party custodian. I also
noted that almost twenty months had elapsed since the defendant last had any contact with the
minor victims or their families, thereby suggesting that there was not an immediate risk of victim
harassment or intimidation. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§
3142 (B) any release order I could fashion
would be required to contain specific restrictions, including a requirement of electronic
monitoring. These factors all would help to negate the risk of dangerous to the community and
could result in a release order under the statutory directive.
Nevertheless I am satisfied in this case that the Government has met its burden and that
detention is necessary because of the risk of flight. I base this decision on the factors set forth in
18 U.S.C.
§
3142 (g), starting first with the nature and circumstances of the offense. In addition
to the involvement of minor victims, the events surrounding the Fall 2008 — January 2009 time
period demonstrate that the defendant has a degree of sophistication regarding concealing his
identity and trying to evade detection while trying to persuade the victims’ families to call off the
investigation into his activities. Additionally, a year later in January 2010 when “intimidated” by
law enforcement when they executed a search warrant at his resident, DeHart fled to Mexico.
Admittedly he returned promptly to the United States, apparently at his parents’ urging, but the
fact remains that his initial response to his difficulties was flight, again showing his desire to
evade confrontation with law enforcement. Since April of 2010 DeHart has attempted to
2
Case 3:10-mj-04062 Document 3 Red 08/16/10 Page 4 of 9 PagelD #: 14
Case 1:10-mj-00140-MJK Document 13 Filed 08/11/10 Page 3 of 3
establish a life in Canada, again allowing for the fair inference that he hoped to evade law
enforcement in Tennessee. Now he is confronted with a criminal prosecution that carries a
mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years if he should ever be convicted. One can fairly
infer that if DeHart is given an opportunity to evade this prosecution, he will take it. Electronic
monitoring without GPS monitoring (apparently unavailable in Indiana) would put at risk being
able to monitor DeHart’s whereabouts at all times. DeHart’s conduct since the investigation
began in January 2009 suggests he is an extreme risk of flight. Additionally he has a history of
mental health problems that suggests a degree of instability and poor judgment. All of these
factors taken together lead me to conclude that detention is necessary in this case because of the
risk of flight.
Part III - Directions Regarding Detention
The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his designated
representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent possible, from
persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The defendant
shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel, On
order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the government, the person
in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United States Marshal for
the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.
August 11, 2010 1sf Margaret J. Kravchuk
U.S. Magistrate Judge
3
Case 3:10-mj-04062 Document 3 Filed 08/16/10 Page 5 of 9 PagelD #: 15
Case 1:10-mj-00140MJK Document 15 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of I
AO 94 (Rev. 06/09) Commitment to Another District
COMMITMENT TO ANOTHER DISTRICT
“ r’
2OIOALJII
P t:23
tJr’j
Y
The defendant has been ordered to appear in the Middle
The defendant: will retain an attorney.
- division. The defendant may need an interpreter for this language:
is requesting courtappointed counsel.
The defendant remains in custody after the initial appearance.
IT IS ORDERED: The United States marshal must transport the defendant, together with a copy of this order,
to the charging district and deliver the defendant to the United States marshal for that district, or to another officer
authorized to receive the defendant. The marshal or officer in the charging district should immediately notify the United
States attorney and the clerk of court for that district of the defendant’s arrival so that further proceedings may be
promptly scheduled. The clerk of this district must promptly transmit the papers and any bail to the charging district.
Date: 08/1112010
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST: Linda L. Jacobson. Clerk
By:--
Deputy Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
Middle District of Tennessee
United States of America
)
v.
)
MATTHEW DEHART
)
Case No. 1:10-mJ-140-MJK
)
)
Charging District’s
Defendani
)
Case No, 10-4062JSB
((fapp(icabte) Nashville
District of Tennessee
7ØL 2IA
Margaret J, Kravchuk, Magistrate Judge
Printed name and title
Case 3:10-mj-04062 Document 3 Piled 08/16/10 Page 6 of 9 PagelD #: 16