Thomas

United States v. Thomas

Good Law
615 F. Supp. 2d 1083·2009 WL 1385886
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 21, 2009C09-0363 SBACalifornia1,412 words

Opinion

Opinion

Zimmerman, J.

MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING ORDER OF RELEASE

Following a detention hearing, I announced that I was prepared to release Darían Ray Thomas on a $200,000 unsecured bond with a substantial number of conditions co-signed by his parents, his brother, his sister, and a longtime friend. The government objected to these signatories because none of them had completed an affidavit of surety which the government contended is required by Rule 46(e) and because some of the sureties were not financially responsible and they did not have $200,000 in assets. The government then informed me that it intended to seek review of my decision, prompting me to author this Memorandum to explain my reasoning.

The government has been announcing for some weeks that it will insist on having signatories to an unsecured bond complete an affidavit of surety in accordance with Rule 46(e). The government has proposed that Form AO 98A be used. That form has been replaced by Form AO 100B. Since the government has never had such a requirement in the 13 years that I have been a magistrate judge, I inquired of my colleagues around the country whether their courts are requiring such affidavits. Eighteen districts responded.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.