USA v. Arroyo-Sotelo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Jose Alberto Arroyo-Sotelo,
Defendant.
Criminal No. 25-439 (DWF/EMB)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Jose Alberto Arroyo-Sotelo’s motion
to revoke (Doc. No. 38) Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty’s order of detention (Doc.
No. 17). The United States of America (the “Government”) opposes. (Doc. No. 40.)
The Court held a hearing on this matter on January 30, 2026. (Doc. No. 46.) For the
reasons set forth below, and consistent with the Court’s comments from the bench, the
Court grants Arroyo-Sotelo’s motion and orders his release on conditions.
BACKGROUND
On October 10, 2025, Arroyo-Sotelo was arrested by agents from U.S. Customs
and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”), and the
Internal Revenue Service. (Doc. No. 1-1 ¶¶ 4, 10.) Following his arrest, Arroyo-Sotelo
was charged with assault on a federal officer and reentry of a removed alien. (Doc.
Nos. 1, 18.) He was brought in on a bench warrant for his first appearance on
October 20, 2025. (Doc. No. 6.) Following a detention hearing on October 27, 2025,
CASE 0:25-cr-00439-DWF-EMB Doc. 48 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Judge Docherty ordered Arroyo-Sotelo’s detention pending trial. (Doc. Nos. 13, 17, 35.)
Judge Docherty primarily relied on an HSI Special Agent’s testimony that Arroyo-Sotelo
reached for and pulled his firearm during the October 10th arrest. (See Doc. No. 17
at 2-3.) Arroyo-Sotelo now moves to revoke Judge Docherty’s detention order under
18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). (Doc. No. 38.)
DISCUSSION
A district court reviews a magistrate judge’s order for release or detention de novo.
See United States v. Maull, 773 F.2d 1479, 1481 (8th Cir. 1985). A defendant may be
detained pending trial “if the government shows by clear and convincing evidence that no
release condition or set of conditions 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. Abad, 350 F.3d 793, 797
(8th Cir. 2003) (citation modified). To determine whether such release conditions exist,
courts consider: (1) the nature and circumstances of the crime; (2) the weight of the
evidence against the defendant; (3) the history and characteristics of the defendant; and
(4) the seriousness of the danger to the community. Id.
Arroyo-Sotelo recently obtained access to the body-worn camera (“BWC”) videos
of the October 10th arrest. He now moves to revoke the detention order because he
asserts that the BWC video undermines the HSI Special Agent’s allegation that he
reached for the agent’s firearm during the October 10th arrest. (Doc. No. 38 at 4-5.)
Additionally, Arroyo-Sotelo highlights that no agent saw him reach for the gun, rather the
CASE 0:25-cr-00439-DWF-EMB Doc. 48 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 4

3
HSI Special Agent said he felt pressure on his firearm during arrest.1 (See id.) The
Government counters that the BWC video does not change the detention calculus, and
that Judge Docherty correctly weighed the nature and circumstances of the alleged crime.
(Doc. No. 40.)
After a careful review of the record, including the BWC video, the Court finds that
there are release conditions that will reasonably assure the safety of the community, and
therefore grants Arroyo-Sotelo’s motion to revoke. The Court does not minimize the
seriousness of the HSI Special Agent’s allegations; however, the weight of the evidence
on the assault charge is weak. The BWC video contradicts some of the HSI agent’s
account of the arrest, and no reach or grab of the firearm is visible. Judge Docherty did
not have access to the BWC video at the time of his determination. Moreover, the history
and characteristics of Arroyo-Sotelo do not suggest that he poses any danger to the
community. Accordingly, the Court grants his motion to revoke and will issue a separate
order setting conditions of release.
As a final note, the Court expresses its concern regarding the factual basis for the
assault charge. The BWC video reviewed by the Court does not show that Arroyo-Sotelo
“forcibly assaulted” federal law enforcement. While the video cannot entirely foreclose
that possibility, it seriously undermines the Government’s version of events. The trial in
1 	At the probable cause and detention hearing, the HSI Special Agent testified that
he saw Arroyo-Sotelo grab the gun. (Doc. No. 35 at 34-35.) This testimony conflicts
with his reported account in the affidavit attached to the complaint. (Id.; see Doc.
No. 1-1 ¶ 9.)
CASE 0:25-cr-00439-DWF-EMB Doc. 48 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 4

4
this matter is set to begin at the end of next month. The Court strongly suggests that the
Government consider plea offers that do not include the assault charge so that this matter
may be resolved without a trial.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing and the record in this case, and consistent with the Court’s
comments from the bench, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Defendant Jose Alberto Arroyo-Sotelo’s motion to revoke (Doc. No. [38])
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty’s order of detention (Doc. No. [17]) is GRANTED.
2. 	A separate order setting conditions of release shall issue.
Dated: January 30, 2026 	s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
CASE 0:25-cr-00439-DWF-EMB Doc. 48 Filed 01/30/26 Page 4 of 4