United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, JUDGE
WILLIAM H. BAUGHMAN, JR., United States Magistrate Judge
case came before me on the motion of the United States to
revoke defendant Brian K. Stepp's bond under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3148. I held an evidentiary hearing on the motion on
March 28, 2017. On March 29, 2017, I entered an order
granting the motion, revoking the bond, and committing Stepp
to custody. This memorandum and order elaborates upon
the reasons for granting the motion.
motion of the United States presented two issues for
• The statute provides for revocation of bond upon a
finding of probable cause that the defendant has committed a
state crime while on release. Stepp made arrangements for a
physical assault upon two persons who made allegations to
Stepp's customers that Stepp owed these persons money.
The assaults did not take place. Has the movant shown
probable cause that Stepp committed the offense of complicity
to commit attempted assault?
• If such probable cause exists, the statute provides
for a rebuttable presumption arises that no conditions will
assure that Stepp will not pose a danger to the community or
the safety of others. Stepp submits that conditions such as
electronic monitoring will eliminate such danger. Has Stepp
rebutted the statutory presumption in favor of revocation?
Statement of the Case
grand jury returned an indictment against Stepp on multiple
counts for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, false
statement of loan application, and false
statement.At the arraignment, Pretrial Services
recommended release on a bond, and the United States
concurred in that recommendation. Magistrate Judge Greenberg
issued an order setting conditions of release, which included
“[t]he defendant must not violate federal, state, or lo
c a l law while on release.”
March 22, 2017 the Court issued an arrest warrant for Stepp
for violation of his conditions of release. Stepp was
arrested the next day. At his initial appearance the United
States moved to revoke his bond, and the Court set the motion
for a hearing. Stepp remained in custody pending the
outcome of the hearing.
an evidentiary hearing, the Court ordered Stepp to remain in
custody pending the ruling on the motion to revoke
bond. The Court entered its ruling granting the
motion, revoking the bond, and remanding Stepp to the custody
of the United States Marshal.
Statement of the Facts
became upset when a man named Gary Stout of Stout Lumber, to
whom he owed approximately $9000, went to two of Stepp's
customers to collect from them money that they owed Stepp,
giving notice of intention to place a lien on that money.
Although Stepp threatened Stout once or twice, he responded
that he intended to go to various municipalities to find out
where Stepp had open permits.
then approached a man (CW) about shutting up Stout, and CW
responded that “[t]hat can be handled.” Stepp
said that he wanted Stout hurt and offered $500, $250 now and
$250 “when it's done.” Apparently Stout's
son had come to a construction site the day before, and CW
had seen him at the time. Stepp explained that he wanted a
message sent to Stout and to the son also. Stepp wanted CW to
break the jaws of Stout and his son so that they would have
to have their jaws wired up and could not talk.
Stout went with CW to the Stout Lumber yard to identify Stout
and his son. CW photographed Stepp at the counter. Stepp
cautioned that he did not want anything said to the Stouts
during the beating and nothing said at ...