govinfo:USCOURTS-moed-4_23-cr-00505-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 
EASTERN DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 
 ) 
Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
v. )  No. 4:23-CR-505 RLW 
 ) 
MARCELLIS BLACKWELL, ) 
 ) 
Defendant. ) 
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 This matter is before the Court on Defendant  Marcellis Blackwell’s Mo tion for 
Revocation of the Magistrate Judge’s Detention Order (ECF No. 22). U.S. Magistrate Judge John 
M. Bodenhausen ordered Defendant detained after he found that the Government established by 
clear and convincing evidence that Defendant presents a danger to the community, and by a 
preponderance of the evidence that Defendant is a flight risk. 
 The Government filed a response oppos ing the motion (ECF No. 24). Defendant did not 
file a reply and the time to do so has passed. Defendant’s m otion is therefore ready for decision. 
The Court has conducted de novo review of the record, and will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s 
order of detention and reasons as it agrees f ully therewith. Accordingly, the Court will deny 
Defendant’s motion. 
Legal Standard 
The Court reviews the detention order de novo, without deference to the Magistrate 
Judge’s findings. See United States v. Koenig, 912 F.2d 1190, 1191- 92 (9th Cir. 1990); se e 
generally United States v. Maull , 773 F.2d 1479, 1481- 82 (8th Cir. 1995)  (en banc) (de novo 
review of order setting bond appropriate). The Court is “required to analyze the conditions of 
release to determine whether any would give reasonable assurance of appearance.” Id. at 1485. 
Case: 4:23-cr-00505-MAL     Doc. #:  26     Filed: 12/12/23     Page: 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
A defendant retains the constitutional presumption of innocence. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(j). A 
defendant may be detained before trial “[o]nly if the government shows by clear and convincing 
evidence that no release condition or set of c onditions will reasonably assure the safety of the 
community and by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or set of conditions . . . will 
reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance.” United States v. Kisling, 334 F.3d 734, 735 (8th 
Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Orta , 760 F.2d 887, 891 (8th Cir. 1985)); see 18 U.S.C. 
§ 3142(c), (e)-(f). “[E]ither danger to the community or risk of flight is sufficient to authorize 
detention.” United States v. Cantu, 935 F.2d 950, 952 (8th Cir. 1991) (quoting United States v. 
Sazenski, 806 F.2d 846, 848 (8th Cir. 1986)).  
In determining if release conditions exist that will reasonably assure the appearance of a 
defendant at trial, the Court must consider the following factors: 
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the 
offense is a crime of violence, a Federal crime of terrorism, or involves a 
minor victim or a controlled substance, firearm, explosive, or destructive 
device; 
 
(2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 
 
(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 person was on 
probation, on parole, or on other release pe nding 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 person or the community that 
would be posed by the person’s release. 
 
18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). 
 
 “Reviewing without deference does not require the district court to start over in every 
case and proceed as if the magistrate’s decision and findings do not exist.” United States v. 
Case: 4:23-cr-00505-MAL     Doc. #:  26     Filed: 12/12/23     Page: 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>
3 
Cook, No. 23-3147, __ F.4th __, 2023 WL 8463702, at *4 (8th Cir. Dec. 7, 2023) (cleaned up) 
(quoted case omitted). “If the district court agrees fully with the magistrate ’s order and reasons, 
it may adopt the order.” Id. (citing cases). 
Discussion  
 The Court has reviewed the entire record, including the Government’s motion for  
detention, the Pretrial Services Office’s bail report, the Order of Detention, the transcript of the 
detention hearing, and the parties’ briefing on the instant motion. Having done so, it agrees fully 
with the Magistrate Judge’s order and reasons. Further, the Government offers additional facts in 
its opposition that evidence the potential danger Defendant presents to the safety of the 
community and to specific persons. Specifically, the Government asserts: 
10. In addition to evidence on his cellular phones related to the eight victims of 
his charged conduct in the present Indictment and possible 10 additional victims 
identified through continued investigation, the defendant took and retained 
photographs and videos of private citizens who were not in his custody as a police 
officer. He took those photographs and videos while he was both on and off duty. 
These private citizens were covertly photographed and/or recorded by the 
defendant in both a small elevator and public restrooms. The photographs and 
recordings taken in public restrooms show men at urinals and men in stalls, taken 
from under the wall of an adjacent stall. 
 
11. While not of a sexual nature, the defendant took and retained photographs of 
identification cards, primarily driver’s licenses, of approximately 150 citizens. 
These images are on the defendant’s two cellular phones, with over 120 of them 
on the phone he described to law enforcement as his personal phone. Each of 
these images depicts a photograph and personal identifying inf ormation of its 
owner. 
 
12. Also on the defendant’s cellular phones, there are photographs of several 
Normandy High School student identification cards. These images include the 
name, grade, and a photograph of each of the students. 
 
13. Considering the data that the defendant collected and retained and the 
knowledge that there are additional victims cooperating with continued 
investigation, the safety of the community in general, as well as specific 
individuals, is at risk should the defendant be released. 
 
(ECF No. 24 at 4.) Defendant has made no response to these factual allegations. 
Case: 4:23-cr-00505-MAL     Doc. #:  26     Filed: 12/12/23     Page: 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>
4 
Conclusion 
 Based on de novo review of the entire record, the Court finds the circumstances warrant 
detention as the Government has shown by clear and convi ncing evidence that no release 
condition or set of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community, and has shown 
by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or set of conditions will reasonably assure 
Defendant’s appearance.  
Accordingly, 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED  that Defendant Marcellis Blackwell’s Mo tion for 
Revocation of the Magistrate Judge’s Detention Order (ECF No. 22) is DENIED. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Blackwell  shall remain committed to the 
custody of the Attorney General or a designated representative for confinement in a corrections 
facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or held in 
custody pending appeal. Defendant must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to consult 
privately with defense counsel. On order of the United States Court or on request of an attorney 
for the Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility must deliver Defendant to the 
United States Marshal for a court appearance. 
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall provide a copy of this 
Memorandum and Order to the United States Marshals Service. 
 
 
RONNIE L. WHITE 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
Dated this 12th day of December, 2023. 
Case: 4:23-cr-00505-MAL     Doc. #:  26     Filed: 12/12/23     Page: 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight