Defendant determined to be a flight risk by U.S. District Court for

Daily Record (Rochester, NY), Mar 28, 2005 by Helen Nguyen

In a case where the defendant was arrested for conspiring to import more than $1 million worth of marijuana into the United States, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York determined he was a flight risk and should be detained while he awaits his trial.

In United States v. Paul E. Pryce, Gurpreet Singh Gill and Harpal Singh Sidhu, Judge William M. Skretny concluded the defendant should be detained based on the seriousness of the alleged crime and since he was a flight risk because he lived in Canada.

Indictment, Detention Order

In December 2004, the defendant, Harpal Singh Sidhu, was indicted for conspiring to import with the intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana from Canada to the United States. The marijuana was valued at more than $1 million.

The incident involved two other defendants, Gurpreet Singh Gill and Paul E. Pryce. The police first discovered the marijuana as Pryce attempted to drive a tractor trailer across the border. Pryce cooperated with the police by leading them to a rendezvous point in Pennsylvania where Gill and Sidhu were arrested when they attempted to unload the boxes of marijuana from the tractor trailer.

Sidhu initially told officers he thought he was unloading mattresses and boxes from the truck but later claimed he thought he was picking up auto parts.

Sidhu was arraigned. A hearing was also conducted in which a magistrate judge ordered that Sidhu be detained while he awaited his trial. Sidhu opposed the detention order.

Bail Reform Act

In addressing whether Sidhu's detention should be upheld, the court referred to the Bail Reform Act, which allows for the pretrial detention of a defendant after finding that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community, 18 USC Section Section 3142 (e).

Based on this standard, the court determined Sidhu should remain in detention. Specifically, the court noted he was charged with a serious crime and there was considerable evidence against him to support the indictment.

The court also determined Sidhu was a serious flight risk since he and his wife lived in Canada, and his 3-year-old son lived in India.

Balanced against defendant Sidhu's lack of ties to this district and relatively weak ties to Canada, is the nature of defendant Sidhu's offenses (conspiring to import and possess more than $1 million worth of marijuana), wrote Judge Skretny, citing United States v. Martir, 782 F2d 1141, 1146 (2d Cir. 1986). The nature of these offenses makes him an inherent flight risk.

In addition, the court found that because Sidhu was accused of drug trafficking his release could impose a danger to the community.

[T]his court ... finds that the government has met its burden of proving (by a preponderance of the evidence) that defendant Sidhu is a risk of flight, see United States v. Jackson, 823 F2d 4, 5 (2d Cir. 1987), and its burden of proving (by clear and convincing evidence) that he is a danger to others and the community, see United States v. Ferranti, 66 F3d 540, 542 (2d Cir. 1995), concluded Judge Skretny. Accordingly, this court finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure defendant Sidhu's appearance as required and the safety of any other person and the community, see 18 USC Section 3142(e).