USA v. DaCruz

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:23-cr-00052-WES-PAS Document 30 Filed 07/06/23 Page 1 of 9 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

V. | CR No. 23-52-WES-PAS

RYAN DACRUZ |
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN, United States Magistrate Judge.

On June 12, 2023, following an extended hearing, the Court entered an Order of
Detention based on the finding that no conditions or combination of conditions had yet been
found that would adequately address the danger that the release of Defendant Ryan DaCruz
would pose to any person or the community. ECF No. 15. Nevertheless, the Court also found
that it remained possible that a location for release could be found that would adequately address
the risk, ee coupled with strict conditions
calibrated to enforce what Defendant had argued — that the evidence of his active engagement in
acts of gang provocation triggering gang violence was from the period prior to his 2022 felony
convictions. Therefore, the Court directed Pretrial Services to continue to explore whether such
a location could be found and such conditions could be developed. Id. at 19. On June 15, 2023,

Pretrial Services advised the Court that a satisfactory home assessment had been conducted of a

proposed release rider

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
GPO

2
After this proposal was presented to the parties, together with Pretrial Services’
recommendation that it appeared workable if coupled with other strict conditions, on June 20,
2023, Defendant filed his Motion for Pre-Trial Release Upon Conditions. ECF No. 17. The
government filed an objection, presenting new evidence and requesting that the motion be
denied. ECF No. 18. Hearings were held on June 26 and 30, 2023. The government presented
additional evidence that was accepted during the hearings. For the reasons stated on the record
during the June 30, 2023, hearing and as set out below, 1 the motion for release was denied at the
June 30, 2023, hearing and the Order of Detention remains in full force and effect.
I. 	Findings and Analysis
Supplementing the evidence presented during the underlying hearing that culminated in
the issuance of the Order of Detention, the government offered the three exhibits attached to its
opposition to the motion for release, which the Court accepted in evidence designated as ECF
Nos. 18-2, 18-3 and 18-4. Four additional exhibits were accepted in evidence at the hearings on
June 26 and 30; they are marked as Exhibits 1 to 4. 2 Collectively, as authenticated and explained
by the government’s proffer, this unrebutted 3 evidence establishes that (1) Defendant’s active
1 As required by the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i)(1), the Court’s Order of Detention includes a detailed
written statement of findings and reasons. ECF No. 15. After ruling on the motion for release on the record during
the hearing, the Court asked if Defendant requested that the Court issue a written decision restating the analysis.
Following consultation with counsel, he made that request. In consideration of Defendant’s request, this decision
memorializes the ruling originally stated on the record.
2 Some of the new exhibits are derived from information that the government has just begun to discover based on its
still ongoing review of information found on the phone seized at the time of Defendant’s arrest. ECF No. 18-1 at 3-
4. These exhibits had not yet been located as of the time of the original set of hearings that culminated in the entry
of the Order of Detention.
3 The government’s new evidence and the government’s representations regarding its provenance, authenticity and
significance were presented before, on or shortly after June 26, 2023, although Exhibit 4 was not marked until the
June 30 hearing. The Court continued the matter to June 30, 2023, to afford Defendant a full opportunity to develop
arguments and evidence in rebuttal to this evidence and the government’s representations about it. At the June 30,
2023, hearing, Defendant advised the Court that he had nothing to add with respect to the new evidence and relied
instead on his argument that, despite the new evidence, conditions could be set.
Case 1:23-cr-00052-WES-PAS Document 30 Filed 07/06/23 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

Case 1:23-cr-00052-WES-PAS Document 30 Filed 07/06/23 Page 3 of 9 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

interest in firearms, and his participation in gang-related communications and in conduct to
instigate gang violence has not abated (as he had argued) but has continued to the present,
exacerbating significantly the danger (as the government clearly and convincingly established) to
any person and the community posed by Defendant’s release; and (2) the information that

Pretrial Services relied on to recommend the proposed residence was tainted by Pretrial Services’

mistaken understandings thatthe residence

At the time of his June 1, 2023, arrest, Defendant had been residing for two years on

at the residence where he was allegedly found in possession of

ammunition, two magazines and drug trafficking paraphernalia. ECF No. 15 at 4. For release,

Defendant initially proposed to live at his prior residence, aa

The government’s new evidence

cstaishes ht he

* To distinguish him from Defendant, Russell DaCruz is referred to as “Russell.” No disrespect is intended.

3

Case 1:23-cr-00052-WES-PAS Document 30 Filed 07/06/23 Page 4 of 9 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

Because Defends a
ee. I pause for an aside regarding the government’s evidence of

Russell’s criminal history and gang involvement. ECF No. 18-3. This evidence establishes that
Russell has been incarcerated at the ACI most recently with a release “at court” as of December
2022; his criminal history includes convictions based on pleas for drug trafficking (two felony
convictions), felony conspiracy, domestic violence (misdemeanor) and disorderly conduct
(misdemeanor). Id. at 1-7. Russell’s Facebook account has a posting from early 2021, that also
appears as a header on his Instagram account. Id. at 9-10. This is a photograph that appears to
display individuals making gang hand signs that are similar to those in Exhibit 6, presented
during the earlier hearing. See ECF No. 15 at 14 (hand signals display “Little East/LE” gang).
Importantly, this information regarding Russell was brought to the attention of Pretrial Services
after Defendant proposed to work at Russell’s barbershop during the hearing held on June 1,
2023; based on this adverse information, that proposal was dropped. By the time the case was
formally presented in Court, Defendant was proposing to work at a café and a youth sports

organization.

The parties quibble regarding whether the representation tha ii

ys was an intentional falsehood/omission of material information or (as

Defendant contends) whether it simply was a misunderstanding that Pretrial Services

5
inadvertently perpetuated by failing to ask more questions. The government points out that
Russell’s inappropriateness as an anchor for Defendant’s employment in his barbershop had
already been exposed so that Defendant’s family was well aware that the newly proposed
residence might similarly be rejected for the same reason
Ultimately, I find that it was not necessary to
determine whether Defendant’s family members intentionally misled Pretrial Services. What
matters is that Pretrial Services’ recommendation of release to the new location was based on a
material misunderstanding. Therefore, I have given the recommendation no weight and instead
have assessed the appropriateness of the new proposed residence based on the facts as presented.
Returning to
From the ongoing review of Defendant’s phone, the government presented Exhibits 1 and
2. Exhibit 1 establishes that,
Case 1:23-cr-00052-WES-PAS Document 30 Filed 07/06/23 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Collectively, this evidence supports the finding that Defendant’s first proposal for release
Based on this evidence, I find that, if Defendant were released to the new proposed
location,
Case 1:23-cr-00052-WES-PAS Document 30 Filed 07/06/23 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Importantly, the persons who would be placed at risk include the Pretrial Services
officer(s) who would be obliged to approach and enter the residence. I further find that release to
the newly proposed residence does not mitigate but simply perpetuates
Also pertinent to the danger is new evidence from Defendant’s phone and social media.
ECF No. 18-4; Ex. 3. In ECF No. 18-4 are twenty-four images of firearms and firearm parts 6
that law enforcement found on Defendant’s phone. Based on its preliminary review, the
government represents that these are photographs that were on the phone with “created” dates
reflected in ECF No. 18-4. 7 The “created” dates confirm that Defendant’s familiarity and
sophistication with and significant interest in firearms over time has continued, indeed
intensified, since 2019. See ECF No. 15 at 13 (noting evidence through November 2019
reflecting Defendant’s interest in firearms). The images in ECF No. 18-4 are right up to the
present in that the earliest “created” date is one image of a gun in 2019, followed by two images
of guns from 2020, five from 2021, none from 2022, but sixteen are from 2023, of which two
6 While some of these photographs appear to be professionally shot stock pictures or pictures copied from the
internet, many have the appearance of pictures taken by an individual of guns laid out on a surface or held in a hand
to display the possession of one or more dangerous weapons.
7 These photographs sometimes include a hand or arm but the government advises that none of the images of
persons can (as of now) be linked to Defendant.
Case 1:23-cr-00052-WES-PAS Document 30 Filed 07/06/23 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
display a group of what appears to be pistols/revolvers and long gun(s). 8 That is, ECF No. 18-4
establishes that Defendant’s interest in firearms did not abate (as he argued) after his 2022 felony
conviction for carrying a pistol/revolver without a license but rather has grown.
Extremely troubling is Exhibit 3, a short video that the government represents was on
Defendant’s phone and posted to Defendant’s Snapchat account on April 27, 2023. This video
depicts a person who appears to be Defendant riding in a car with what appears to be a real
handgun in his lap. As the government argues, and I so find, whether or not the firearm is real or
operable, this video is a menacing display of Defendant intentionally engaged in conduct for the
purpose of projecting himself as a person of violence.
Collectively, this evidence alters my earlier finding that the lack of evidence of
affirmative conduct by Defendant to perpetuate gang violence in the period after his 2022
firearm felony conviction meant that conditions of release could be set as long as the residual
danger was adequately addressed. See ECF No. 15 at 4 (Pretrial Services directed “to explore
whether there may be conditions that would adequately address the danger posed by Defendant’s
release”). I now find that the government’s proof demonstrates that, despite being on probation
for the 2022 felonies, Defendant is an individual
(3) who has an ongoing interest in
firearms; and (4) who has a deep-seated distrust of law enforcement. Coupled with the evidence
of his criminal history, including his established bail violation in 2020, his near complete lack of
8 The government noted that the phone had a factory reset on March 21, 2023, so that law enforcement is still
studying the meaning of the “created” dates. Mindful that the dates on images with “created” dates on or prior to the
factory reset may not be accurate, I find it significant that, after the factory reset, there are nine gun images on
Defendant’s phone.
Case 1:23-cr-00052-WES-PAS Document 30 Filed 07/06/23 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
any employment, and his drug trafficking, I find that this evidence demonstrates that Defendant
is not going to abide by such conditions that the Court can set to mitigate the danger. That is, I
now find that not even the strictest conditions or combination of conditions can adequately
address the danger that Defendant’s release would pose to any person and the community,
including (importantly) the Pretrial Services officer(s) assigned to supervise him.
II. 	Conclusion
I find by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant’s release would pose a danger to
the community that cannot adequately be addressed by conditions or any combination of
conditions. Based on this finding, Defendant’s motion for pretrial release (ECF No. 17) is
denied. I further order that the Order of Detention, ECF No. 15, shall remain in full force and
effect.
/s/ Patricia A. Sullivan
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN
United States Magistrate Judge
July 6, 2023
Case 1:23-cr-00052-WES-PAS Document 30 Filed 07/06/23 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:
<pageID>