UNITED STATES v. STONE (2024)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the United States' Motion for Stay and Revocation of Magistrate Judge's Release Order (Doc. 9).

I. Background

On May 7, 2024, Customs and Border Protection alerted Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”) in Atlanta about a seized shipment of 65 pieces of Glock switch component parts, 10 Glock switches, and 2 drop-in auto sears headed to 4241 Hendrix Drive J7, Forest Park, Georgia from China. (Doc. 9-1 at 9). These items can be used to convert semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic firearms. (Id. at 8). The United States Postal Inspector Service (“USPIS”) was contacted about the shipment and was able to identify an internet protocol (“IP”) address that was frequently checking on the status of the package. (Id. at 10). Comcast provided the subscriber name and address, which matched the Hendrix Drive address. (Id.). An open-source query on Facebook of the subscriber led to a photo and positive identification of Javares Stone. (Id.). A week later, agents conducted surveillance at the Hendrix Drive address and saw Mr. Stone and another individual apparently armed with rifles. (Id.). The next day, USPIS observed a new T-Mobile IP address tracking the seized shipment and learned that Mr. Stone was the subscriber of the IP address. (Id. at 12). On May 20, 2024, HIS observed Mr. Stone and his two children leaving the Hendrix Drive address; Mr. Stone was carrying a Draco AK and a shoulder holster with a pistol. (Id. at 13).

On May 28, 2024, agents executed a search warrant at the Hendrix Drive address where Mr. Stone lives with his wife and two children. (Doc. 9 at 3). Mr. Stone was cooperative and assisted the agents locate five firearms in the residence. One of them was affixed with a drop in auto-sear, which is considered to be a machine gun. (Id. at 4). Therefore, although Mr. Stone is not a prohibited person, he was arrested for possession of a machinegun. (Id.; see Doc. 1).

On May 29, 2024, the Government filed a Motion for Detention (Doc. 3) asserting that the case was eligible for a detention order because there is a serious risk that Mr. Stone would flee, and that detention was appropriate because there are no conditions of release that would reasonably assure his appearance. (Id.). After hearing argument from the parties, United States Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand denied detention and instead set conditions of release. (Doc. 8). The Government then filed a Motion for Stay and Revocation of Magistrate Judge's Release Order.

II. Discussion

A. Legal Standard

The Bail Reform Act favors pretrial release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b) (“The judicial officers shall order the pretrial release of the person ․ ”). But “[i]f a person is ordered released by a magistrate judge, ․ the attorney for the Government may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation of the order or amendment of the conditions of release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a). The district court shall promptly review such a motion de novo. 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b); United States v. Hurtado, 779 F.2d 1467, 1480 (11th Cir. 1985).

B. Analysis

i. Eligibility for Detention

First, the Government cannot move for detention in every case. It can seek detention if: 1) the defendant has been charged with one of the offenses in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1); 2) the defendant's case involves “a serious risk that such person will flee”; or 3) the defendant's case involves “a serious risk that such person will obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice, or threaten, injure, or intimidate, or attempt to threaten, injure or intimidate, a prospective witness or juror.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f).

As noted above, the Government's Motion for Detention indicated that Mr. Stone was eligible for detention because of a serious risk that he will flee. In support of its contention, the Government points to the evidence that Mr. Stone had a connection with someone in China who was supplying machinegun conversion parts. (Doc. 9 at 4–5). Yet at this point in its investigation, the Government could not say whether Mr. Stone obtained the conversion parts from a Chinese website or knew someone in China who was providing the parts. Regardless, the Court finds that the fact that the parts came from China is not a sufficient foreign connection to warrant a finding that Mr. Stone is a serious flight risk. Additionally, the fact that Mr. Stone is facing a sentence of up to ten years' imprisonment does not persuade the Court that detention is warranted. If so, every person charged with illegal possession of a firearm would be detained.

The Court finds that Mr. Stone's history and characteristics do not demonstrate that he is a serious flight risk. He is a lifelong resident of Georgia whose parents and siblings reside in Georgia and he lives with his wife of four years and their two children and has a third child due in September. Mr. Stone does not have a passport and there is no indication that he has the financial resources to flee. Finally, Mr. Stone does not have any criminal history and his compliance with officers, both during a traffic stop referenced in the affidavit in support of the search warrant, and during the execution of the search warrant, do not indicate that he is a flight risk. It is also worth noting that Mr. Stone was released on bond on May 29, 2024 and appeared as required for the hearing before the Court on June 3, 2024.

Considering the Court's conclusion that there is not a serious risk that Mr. Stone will flee, this is not a case that is eligible for a detention order and the analysis should stop with this finding. See United States v. Giordano, 370 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1260–63 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (analyzing limits to when the government can seek detention). Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, the Court will proceed to the next step of the analysis and explain why there are conditions of release that will assure Mr. Stone's appearance and the safety of the community. See United States v. Holmes, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1340, 1343 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (disagreeing with the analysis in Giordano and noting that courts can consider dangerousness whenever a detention hearing is held).

ii. Conditions of Release

In addition to concerns about flight, the Government also asserted that Mr. Stone was a danger to the community. The Government pointed to the fact that they only found one machinegun conversion part at the residence, even though similar packages had been sent to the Hendrix Drive address in recent months, making him a danger to the community. (Doc. 9 at 5). Additionally, the Government noted that Mr. Stone did not secure the firearms that were found in his residence, thus making him a danger to his children. (Id. at 5–6).

In determining whether there are conditions that can assure Mr. Stone's appearance or the safety of the community, the Court recognizes that Mr. Stone was arrested for a serious offense involving possession of a firearm and the Government has presented a compelling case against him. However, Mr. Stone has not been indicted and the presumption of innocence applies. Additionally, Mr. Stone's history and characteristics weigh against detention. He is 29 years old with no criminal history, has a stable living situation with many family members in Georgia, and was compliant with law enforcement. There is no indication that Mr. Stone has any history of drug or alcohol abuse.

While the Court shares the Government's concerns about Mr. Stone's alleged conduct, it is important to note that the Government seized the firearms found in Mr. Stone's residence, thus reducing the danger he poses to others. The Court also believes that Mr. Stone's knowledge of the Government's investigation against him, which included surveillance, a traffic stop, monitoring of his mail and internet use, and the execution of a search warrant followed by his arrest, has sent a clear warning message. Considering all of the factors discussed above, the Court finds that the conditions imposed by Judge Anand will reasonably assure Mr. Stone's appearance and the safety of the community. Home detention and the prohibition on possessing a firearm will limit Mr. Stone's ability to engage in illegal conduct. The prohibition on obtaining a passport and traveling out of the district without permission lessens concerns about Mr. Stone being a flight risk.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the United States' Motion for Stay and Revocation of Magistrate Judge's Release Order (Doc. 9) is DENIED. Mr. Stone is permitted to remain on bond subject to the conditions of release set by Judge Anand (Doc. 8), including home detention rather than home incarceration.

SO ORDERED this 4th day of June, 2024.

Victoria Marie Calvert, United States District Judge