USA v. Tindall et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case Number 2:26-cr-22(1)
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
GARRY LEON TINDALL,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter came before the Court Defendant Garry L. Tindall’s Motion to Revoke
Detention Order. (ECF No. 25.) The Court held a Hearing on Mr. Tindall’s Motion on February
12, 2026. (ECF No. 27.) At the conclusion of the Hearing, the Court orally denied Mr. Tindall’s
Motion. (Id.) This Order memorializes the Court’s ruling from the bench at that Hearing. (Id.)
BACKROUND
In March 2025, investigators received information from a confidential source that Mr.
Tindall was involved in drug trafficking operations. (ECF No. 7, PageID 22–23.) The Drug
Enforcement Agency in Columbus, Ohio investigated the allegation by tracking his location and
surveilling his apartment. (Id. PageID 23.) At the apartment, investigators inspected a trash bag
that Mr. Tindall was observed throwing away and discovered kilogram wrappers and rubber
gloves that contained traces of cocaine. (Id. PageID 26.) Investigators obtained a warrant to
search the apartment, where they discovered approximately 30 kilograms of suspected cocaine,
15 kilograms of suspected fentanyl, six firearms, approximately $15,000 in cash, and other drug
paraphernalia. (Id. PageID 27–29.) Further, on the same day of the apartment search, Mr. Tindall
was observed at the John Glenn International Airport in Columbus, Ohio, where he checked two
Case: 2:26-cr-00022-EAS Doc #: 28 Filed: 02/13/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
luggage bags at the ticket counter. (Id. PageID 27.) Investigators obtained a search warrant for
the luggage bags, where they discovered $60,000 in cash concealed in the insoles of multiple
shoes inside the luggage bags. (Id.)
The Magistrate Judge issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Tindall on August 4, 2025. (ECF
No. 2.) Mr. Tindall was arrested in California on August 6, 2025. (ECF No. 10, PageID 40.)
There, the Pretrial Services Office for the Eastern District of California prepared Pretrial Report
concluding that Mr. Tindall may pose a danger to the community and risk of flight and
recommending that Mr. Tindall be detained pending further proceedings. (Mot., ECF No. 25,
PageID 139–40.) After a detention hearing the Pretrial Services Office issued an Addendum to
its Pretrial Report, where it reached the same conclusion. (Id. PageID 140.) On August 26, 2025,
the Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of California ordered Mr. Tindall to be detained
pending trial. (ECF No. 10, PageID 41.)
Mr. Tindall was subsequently transported to the Southern District of Ohio. (Mot., PageID
139.) The Pretrial Services Office for the Southern District of Ohio (“S.D. Ohio PSO”) issued an
Addendum to the existing Pretrial Report. (Id. PageID 141.) The S.D. Ohio PSO’s Addendum
recommended that Mr. Tindall be released with special conditions because it scored Mr. Tindall
as a Category 3 on the Pretrial Risk Assessment instrument. (Id.) According to the Addendum,
defendants in Category 3 are “successful on bond in the following percentages: 97.5% appear in
Court; 98.7% do not incur a new arrest for a violent offense; and 91.5% do not incur any new
arrest.” (Id. PageID 142 (quoting the S.D. Ohio PSO’s Addendum).) Mr. Tindall asks the Court
to (1) revoke the detention order imposed by the Eastern District of California and (2) release
him on conditions recommended by the S.D. Ohio PSO. (Id. PageID 143–44.)
Case: 2:26-cr-00022-EAS Doc #: 28 Filed: 02/13/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
Mr. Tindall has been charged with (1) conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent
to distribute a controlled substance; (2) possession of a controlled substance with intent to
distribute; (3) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; (4) possession of
a firearm by a prohibited person; and (5) maintaining a drug premises. (ECF No. 19.)
APPLICABLE LAW
Under the Bail Reform Act, federal courts have two options regarding how to proceed
with a criminal defendant who is awaiting trial: either release the defendant on bail or order him
detained without bail. Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 57 (1995). The charges in this case trigger a
statutory presumption in favor of detention. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3). The statute sets forth four
factors for courts to consider when deciding pretrial detention:
(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense charged;
(2) The weight of the evidence against the person;
(3) The history and characteristics of the person; and
(4) The nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would
be posed by the person’s release.
Id. § 3142(g).
HEARING
At the February 12, 2026 Hearing, Mr. Tindall and the Government presented their
arguments, which were guided by the 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) factors. (ECF No. 27.) Mr. Tindall’s
attorneys emphasized Mr. Tindall’s connection to his family and the S.D. Ohio PSO’s
recommendation that Mr. Tindall be released subject to certain conditions, which Mr. Tindall is
prepared to abide by. (Id.) The Government presented the allegations in the charges, including
the extent of the drug trafficking operation, Mr. Tindall’s criminal history, Mr. Tindall’s personal
Case: 2:26-cr-00022-EAS Doc #: 28 Filed: 02/13/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
life, and the potential sentences he could face. (Id.) The Government also presented exhibits,
including photos from the apartment and luggage searches. (Id.)
The Court considered the statutory presumption in favor of detention in this case and
analyzed the 18 U.S.C. § 3412(g) factors in light of the presented arguments, the criminal
complaint and affidavit, the indictment, and the Pretrial Report and Addendums. For the reasons
stated on the record during the Hearing, the Court concluded that given the nature of the charges,
Mr. Tindall’s criminal history, and pending charges in California, there is no combination of
conditions that can reasonably assure Mr. Tindall’s appearance and the safety of other persons in
the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). Accordingly, the Court orally denied Mr. Tindall’s
Motion (ECF No. 25). (ECF No. 27.)
Mr. Tindall shall remain detained pending trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2/13/2026 	s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
DATE 	EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 2:26-cr-00022-EAS Doc #: 28 Filed: 02/13/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>