USA v. Alm, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN MICHAEL DUFFY,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cr-289 (LMP/ECW)
ORDER
Raphael B. Coburn, United States Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff.
Jordan S. Kushner, Law Office of Jordan S. Kushner, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Defendant John Michael Duffy is charged with (1) conspiracy to distribute 500
grams or more of methamphetamine (Count 1); (2) possessing a firearm in furtherance of
drug trafficking (Count 5); and (3) three counts of possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine on January 30, March 17, and August 4, 2025 (Counts 4, 7 and 9). ECF
No. 92. 	The superseding indictment also alleges forfeiture against Mr. Duffy, including
$6,396.51, 20 wristwatches, and a PF 905 Polymer 80 semi-automatic pistol without a
serial number seized on January 30, 2025, and $2,835.00 seized on March 17, 2025. 	Id.
at 6–7. 	Counts 1 and 4 carry 10-year mandatory minimum sentences, see 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(b)(1)(A), and Count 5 carries a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence consecutive to
any sentence on the other counts, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A).
CASE 0:25-cr-00289-LMP-EMB Doc. 121 Filed 10/20/25 Page 1 of 10

2
Following a hearing, which included testimony of Special Agent Joshua Wicker of
the FBI, United States Magistrate Judge Jon T. Huseby granted the government’s motion
for detention and ordered Mr. Duffy detained pending trial. See Order of Detention, ECF
No. 56. Judge Huseby considered “the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the presumption
of detention, the allegations of the indictment, the bond report, the testimony of Special
Agent Wicker, and exhibits presented by both parties,” and concluded “by clear and
convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release would
reasonably ensure the safety of the community.” Id. at 2. Judge Huseby did not specifically
opine on Mr. Duffy’s risk of non-appearance.1
After that hearing and resulting detention determination, Mr. Duffy moved under
18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) to reopen his detention hearing based on new information material to
the issue of whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the safety of
the community. ECF No. 62. Specifically, Mr. Duffy had been accepted into Minnesota
Adult and Teen Challenge’s High Intensity Residential Program. ECF Nos. 62, 63.
A second detention hearing was held before United States Magistrate Judge
Elizabeth Cowan Wright. ECF No. 86. At the hearing, Judge Wright first found that new
information exists that was unknown at the time of the first detention hearing sufficient to
reopen detention. 	ECF No. 98 at 25–26. 	Then Judge Wright reviewed the factors to be
1 	At the detention hearing, the parties focused principally on the danger to the
community. See ECF No. 64 at 61:23 (“And I haven’t spoken much about history of flight,
Your Honor.”) Because the Court finds that the government met its burden as to danger to
the community, it does not need to do an independent analysis of risk of non-appearance.
CASE 0:25-cr-00289-LMP-EMB Doc. 121 Filed 10/20/25 Page 2 of 10

3
considered along with the recommendation of release with residential treatment from U.S.
Probation and Pretrial Services (USPPS). 	Id. at 26. 	Judge Wright gave serious
consideration to release with residential treatment given Mr. Duffy’s struggles with
addiction and request for treatment, but was, on balance, persuaded by the totality of other
factors, including the weight of the evidence, which is not considered by USPPS in their
recommendation. 	Id. at 27–28. 	Significantly, Judge Wright found the weight of the
evidence “is indeed strong against Mr. Duffy,” including the results of three searches where
a significant amount of methamphetamine was recovered, including “evidence indicating
an attempt to destroy evidence in the third search.” Id. at 27. Additionally, Judge Wright
noted the recovery of a firearm during the first search. 	Id. 	Overall, Judge Wright found
that the recovery of a weapon, the amount of drugs, the number of cell phones found, and
“the other indicia of drug trafficking” present “a significant danger to the community from
the fact that it appears that Mr. Duffy, based on what the Court has in front of it, was taking
a leading role in drug trafficking and going beyond what a person might do simply to
sustain an addiction.” 	Id. at 28. 	Judge Wright denied the motion “insofar as release to
Minnesota Adult and Teen Challenge is sought.” Id. at 29.
This matter is now before this Court on Mr. Duffy’s motion to revoke the detention
order. 	ECF No. 101; see 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b) (“If a person is ordered detained by a
magistrate judge, . . . the person may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over
the offense, a motion for revocation or amendment of the order.”). Mr. Duffy argues that
Judges Huseby and Wright were wrong to find the United States had proven by clear and
convincing evidence that he was a present danger to the community. 	Specifically, Mr.
CASE 0:25-cr-00289-LMP-EMB Doc. 121 Filed 10/20/25 Page 3 of 10

4
Duffy challenges the determination that he played a leading role in the drug-trafficking
conspiracy and that he was deemed to be a greater danger warranting detention than his co-
defendant Tyler Alm, who has a significant criminal history and failures to comply with
supervision conditions and other court orders. ECF No. 101 at 4–5. Moreover, Mr. Duffy
requests a de novo review of the detention factors, contending that Judges Huseby and
Wright did not specifically address the § 3142(g) detention factors and submit that analysis
in written findings. ECF No. 101 at 6. Mr. Duffy suggests that less restrictive means such
as release to a “reputable residential treatment program in a highly structured and
monitored setting” would reasonably assure the safety of the public. Id. The United States
provided a 17-page response in opposition to Mr. Duffy’s motion to revoke detention—
marshaling the evidence in the Pretrial Services Report and from the first two hearings.
ECF No. 114.
The Court has considered Mr. Duffy’s arguments and conducted a de novo review.
See United States v. Maull, 773 F.2d 1479, 1481–82 (8th Cir. 1985) (en banc). 	For the
reasons that follow, the Court denies Mr. Duffy’s motion and orders that he be detained
pending trial.
ANALYSIS
A court may order a defendant detained pending trial only if the government either
(1) proves by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of
conditions will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance or (2) proves by clear and
convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure
the safety of any other person and the community. 	United States v. Abad, 350 F.3d 793,
CASE 0:25-cr-00289-LMP-EMB Doc. 121 Filed 10/20/25 Page 4 of 10

5
797 (8th Cir. 2003). 	Whether sufficient conditions exist depends on the factors listed in
18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), including: (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 posed by the defendant to the community
or to an individual. Id.
Factor 1: The Nature and Circumstances of the Crime
Mr. 	Duffy 	is 	charged 	with 	conspiracy 	to 	distribute 	500 	grams 	or 	more 	of
methamphetamine, possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and three counts
of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine over an eight-month period in
2025. ECF No. 92. The drug counts carry a rebuttable presumption of detention, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(e)(3)(A), as does the gun count, § 3142(e)(3)(B). Conviction on the charges against
Mr. Duffy would require a sentence of at least 15 years and up to lifetime incarceration.
As such, the nature and circumstances of the alleged crime are serious and weigh against
finding that Mr. Duffy should be released pending trial.
Factor 2: The Weight of the Evidence Against the Defendant
The evidence against Mr. Duffy is very strong. 	Special Agent Wicker testified at
the original detention hearing. 	ECF No. 64 at 5. 	He is a police officer with the Bemidji
Police Department currently assigned to the FBI’s Paul Bunyan Drug Task Force. Id. He
has more than 10 years of experience investigating drug crimes. Id. at 5, 11. Special Agent
Wicker testified about three separate search warrants executed at Mr. Duffy’s residence
where significant amounts of methamphetamine were recovered. 	In January 2025, law
enforcement 	recovered 	approximately 	a 	pound-and-a-half 	of 	high-purity
CASE 0:25-cr-00289-LMP-EMB Doc. 121 Filed 10/20/25 Page 5 of 10

6
methamphetamine in packaged bags, a firearm, a small scale “typically used to weigh
smaller user amounts of methamphetamine,” and a triple beam scale “usually used to weigh
larger amounts of controlled substances.” 	Id. at 14. Special Agent Wicker indicated that
it was a distribution amount. Id. at 15. The presence of a firearm was significant because
“drug traffickers will use firearms to protect themselves and their product” and “to threaten
people who owe them money or as a show of force.” Id. at 15–16. A drug ledger was also
recovered, which showed “several people on this ledger and the dollar amounts that are
owed to [Mr. Duffy], so he’s got a significant amount of cash flowing out there that people
owe him.” Id. at 17–18. Mr. Duffy also had a money counter, which “typically you only
see money counters with large-scale drug trafficking organizations.” Id. at 18. Mr. Duffy’s
DNA was present on the firearm and methamphetamine packaging. Id. at 22; Ex. 4.
In March 2025, another search warrant was executed at Mr. Duffy’s house where he
and co-defendant Tyler Alm were present. Id. at 22. A quarter pound of methamphetamine,
which is a distribution amount, and a small scale were recovered. Id. at 24, 26. Given this,
an indictment was secured. ECF No. 1. While executing an arrest warrant of Mr. Duffy
on August 4, 2025, a search warrant was also executed. It took approximately five minutes
for law enforcement to enter Mr. Duffy’s home. 	ECF No. 64 at 26. 	Several bags of
methamphetamine were ripped open or appeared to be ripped open and shards of
methamphetamine were in a yellow/orange solution. 	Id. at 29. 	Special Agent Wicker
described this as an effort “to get rid of the evidence and to avoid prosecution for possessing
controlled substances.” Id. at 31. All of this evidence seized during three separate searches
weighs against finding that Mr. Duffy should be released pending trial.
CASE 0:25-cr-00289-LMP-EMB Doc. 121 Filed 10/20/25 Page 6 of 10

7
Factor 3: The History and Characteristics of the Defendant
Mr. Duffy is 57 years old with connections to Minnesota. See ECF No. 29 at 1. Mr.
Duffy has been in the state since 1996 and has lived in his current home in Nowthen for
the past four years. Id. at 2. Mr. Duffy’s lengthy criminal history began when he was 20
years old. See ECF No. 79 at 2–3. In June 1989, Mr. Duffy was convicted in California of
felony burglary followed by a first-degree felony burglary conviction in February 1992.
Id. at 2. 	In August 2008, Mr. Duffy was convicted at trial in Beltrami County of felony
first-degree drug possession, which was vacated in October 2009 and subsequently
dismissed. 	Id. at 3. Mr. Duffy pleaded guilty to felony fifth-degree drug possession and
felony receipt of stolen property in Anoka County in January 2012. Id. In July 2021, Mr.
Duffy pleaded guilty to felony receipt of stolen property in Anoka County. Id. at 3. And
in May 2024, Mr. Duffy pleaded guilty to felony theft of a motor vehicle in Beltrami
County. Id. Mr. Duffy reported daily use of cannabinoids and methamphetamine and that
he had previously attended substance use disorder treatment while incarcerated. ECF No.
29 at 3. 	Mr. Duffy is currently unemployed and reported that he may apply for Social
Security Disability Income based on his current physical limitations. Id. at 2. The Court
has no confidence that less restrictive conditions would assure the safety of the community
given Mr. Duffy’s lengthy and ongoing criminal history even recognizing Mr. Duffy’s
addiction history. 	Mr. Duffy’s history and characteristics weigh against releasing him
pending trial.
CASE 0:25-cr-00289-LMP-EMB Doc. 121 Filed 10/20/25 Page 7 of 10

8
Factor 4: The Seriousness of the Danger to the Community or to an Individual
The serious nature of the drug and firearm charges, coupled with Mr. Duffy’s
criminal history and involvement in a serious drug-trafficking case, demonstrate that Mr.
Duffy lacks respect for the law and poses a grave danger to the community if he is released.
The danger Mr. Duffy presents to others in the community weighs against releasing him.
In conducting a de novo review, the conclusion is inescapable that Mr. Duffy poses
a serious risk to the safety of any other person and the community, and Mr. Duffy’s request
for release, including a high-intensity drug treatment program, still presents a greater risk
than this Court is willing to take. 	Mr. Duffy is charged with conspiracy to traffic in
methamphetamine as well as possession of methamphetamine for distribution on several
different occasions. 	In addition, there was a firearm recovered near the drugs. 	The
evidence of Mr. Duffy’s guilt—as described by the government and testified to during the
first hearing—appears to be very strong, and includes DNA evidence and drug-trafficking
evidence, such as scales, a drug ledger, baggies, and a money counter, recovered from his
home on multiple occasions.2 	Central to this finding is the repeated engagement by Mr.
Duffy in drug trafficking over the course of eight months when he knew that he was already
2 	The government notes that upwards of 30 cell phones were recovered from Mr.
Duffy during execution of the search warrants. ECF Nos. 64 at 53; 114 at 11–13. While
some information regarding the contents was testified to by Special Agent Wicker and
proffered by AUSA Raphael Coburn, the Court did not consider this evidence in its de novo
review.
CASE 0:25-cr-00289-LMP-EMB Doc. 121 Filed 10/20/25 Page 8 of 10

9
the subject of an investigation.3 Mr. Duffy’s involvement appears to be more significant
than merely fueling his own addiction. Mr. Duffy also has a long and troubling criminal
history, including up through May 2024. 	In short, there is no compelling evidence that
conditions of release would be effective in protecting the community.
For these reasons, after conducting its own independent review, the Court agrees
with Judges Huseby and Wright and finds that detention is warranted because no condition
or combination of conditions will reasonably assure that Mr. Duffy will not endanger the
community.4
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Defendant’s motion to revoke the order for detention (ECF No. 101) is
DENIED.
3 	While this Court recognizes that there is compelling evidence of Mr. Duffy’s key
role in the drug-trafficking conspiracy, ECF No. 64 at 31–32, 42, whether he played a major
role is not taken into account in this de novo review.
4 	The Court has reviewed the Pretrial Services Report, ECF No. 28, and the transcript
from the reopened detention hearing for co-defendant Tyler Alm, ECF No. 99. The Court
recognizes that the release of Mr. Alm by Judge Wright was “not an easy call.” ECF No. 99
at 19. This Court is similarly persuaded that the release of Mr. Alm was warranted given
that the substance use treatment provided at Adult and Teen Challenge along with location
monitoring mitigates the community risk posed by Mr. Alm. As Judge Wright identified,
Mr. Alm’s involvement in the drug trafficking appeared to be “feeding a habit” rather than
playing a major role in the conspiracy. 	Id. at 22–23. In conducting this separate review,
the Court is further persuaded that the government has met its burden by clear and
convincing evidence of the danger posed by Mr. Duffy, which is distinct from that of Mr.
Alm. Mr. Duffy’s cannot be addressed by anything short of detention.
CASE 0:25-cr-00289-LMP-EMB Doc. 121 Filed 10/20/25 Page 9 of 10

10
2. 	Defendant is hereby ordered DETAINED under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e).
3. 	Defendant is committed to the custody of the United States Marshal for
confinement in a correctional facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons
awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal.
4. 	Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity to consult privately with
his counsel.
5. 	Pursuant to Rule 5.1(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,
defendant is required to appear for further proceedings.
6. 	Upon order of the Court or request by the United States Attorney, the person
in charge of the correctional facility in which defendant is confined shall deliver him to the
United States Marshal for the purpose of appearance in connection with all court
proceedings.
Dated: October 20, 2025 	s/Laura M. Provinzino
Laura M. Provinzino
United States District Judge
CASE 0:25-cr-00289-LMP-EMB Doc. 121 Filed 10/20/25 Page 10 of 10