United States v. Ernesto Santos-Flores
2015 WL 4480561, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12737, 794 F.3d 1088 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Bail Reform Act, a defendant cannot be detained pretrial based on the possibility of involuntary non-appearance due to detention and removal by immigration authorities, as the risk of non-appearance must be volitional. However, pretrial detention is permissible if an individualized assessment of statutory factors demonstrates that the defendant is a voluntary flight risk.
Facts:
- Ernesto Santos-Flores is a native and citizen of Mexico.
- On November 19, 2014, Santos-Flores was convicted of felony illegal reentry in Texas and sentenced to time served plus one year of supervised release, a condition of which was not to reenter the United States without documentation.
- On or about December 9, 2014, Santos-Flores was removed from the United States to Mexico.
- On March 30, 2015, Santos-Flores was apprehended by the Border Patrol in Arizona.
- At the time of his apprehension, Santos-Flores presented a false United States passport, birth certificate, and Social Security card and claimed to be a U.S. citizen.
- Santos-Flores has a U.S. citizen wife and children in Colorado, where he had resided for approximately fifteen years and worked for the same employer for nine years.
- Santos-Flores had a prior charge for failure to appear in a state court proceeding in Colorado.
Procedural Posture:
- Ernesto Santos-Flores was charged by complaint with felony illegal reentry in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.
- A magistrate judge of the District of Arizona issued an order of detention pending trial.
- Santos-Flores appealed the magistrate's order to the district court judge.
- The U.S. District Court affirmed the magistrate's detention order.
- Santos-Flores (appellant) appealed the district court's detention order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Bail Reform Act permit a court to order a defendant's pretrial detention based on the likelihood that immigration authorities will detain and remove the defendant, thus preventing their appearance at trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Unsigned Order
No. The Bail Reform Act does not permit pretrial detention based on the possibility of a defendant's involuntary removal by immigration authorities because the risk of nonappearance referenced in the statute must involve an element of volition. The court reasoned that the government, having chosen to criminally prosecute Santos-Flores rather than immediately remove him, cannot use its own discretionary power of removal to override a defendant's right to an individualized bail determination under the Bail Reform Act. Relying on the mere possibility of immigration detention and removal substitutes a categorical denial of bail for the individualized evaluation required by statute. However, the court affirmed the detention order on the alternative ground that an individualized assessment of factors demonstrated Santos-Flores was a voluntary flight risk. These factors included his violation of the terms of his supervised release, multiple unlawful entries, a prior failure to appear in court, and his use of fraudulent identity documents.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that the 'risk of nonappearance' under the Bail Reform Act must be voluntary, precluding courts from using the possibility of a defendant's deportation as a basis for pretrial detention. It establishes a significant precedent that separates the criminal bail determination from civil immigration enforcement, requiring courts to conduct a genuine, individualized analysis of a defendant's personal likelihood to flee. This decision reinforces the presumption of pretrial release and forces the government to prove voluntary flight risk even for defendants who are undocumented and subject to removal.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Ernesto Santos-Flores