United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
November 1, 2016, Defendant Frank Shahadey was charged by
Complaint with theft or bribery concerning programs receiving
federal funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666. [Filing
No. 1.] At Mr. Shahadey's initial appearance, the
Government moved for pretrial detention, and Magistrate Judge
Mark Dinsmore set a hearing on the Government's motion.
[Filing No. 16.] Magistrate Judge Dinsmore held a detention
hearing on November 4, 2016, denied the Government's
motion for pretrial detention, and entered an Order Setting
Conditions of Release. [See Filing No. 19; Filing No. 20.]
Presently pending before the Court is the Government's
Motion for Revocation of Release Order. [Filing No. 22.]
Court held a hearing on the Government's motion on
November 9, 2016. [Filing No. 33.] The parties did
not call any witnesses, but stipulated to proceed by proffer.
After considering the evidence in this case and the
parties' arguments, the Court GRANTS the Government's
Motion for Revocation of Release Order, [Filing No.
22], REVERSES the Magistrate Judge's decision, and
ORDERS Mr. Shahadey detained pending further Court order. The
following is the Court's rationale for doing so.
of Fact and Conclusions of Law
U.S.C. § 3145(a) provides:
If a person is ordered released by a magistrate judge, or by
a person other than a judge of a court having original
jurisdiction over the offense and other than a Federal
appellate court- (1) the attorney for the Government may
file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the
offense, a motion for revocation of the order or amendment of
the conditions of release[.] The motion shall be determined
district court may review the magistrate judge's findings
de novo, and may hold a new detention hearing.
United States v. Torres, 929 F.2d 291, 292 (7th Cir.
1991). The Court notes at the outset that it has listened to
the recording of the detention hearing held by the Magistrate
Judge and reviewed the evidence introduced, the parties'
briefs, and the Complaint. The Court also notes that its
findings regarding the weight of the evidence are mandated by
18 U.S.C. § 3142(i), and are made for purposes of this
Order only, and not for purposes of proving Mr.
Shahadey's guilt at trial.
Court's inquiry into whether Mr. Shahadey should remain
detained prior to trial is guided by the following factors:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged,
including whether the offense is a crime of violence; (2) the
weight of the evidence against the person; (3) the history
and characteristics of the person, including the person's
character, physical and mental condition, family ties,
employment, financial resources, length of residence in the
community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to
drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, record concerning
appearance at court proceedings, and whether at the time of
the instant offense the defendant was subject to court
supervision; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger
to any person in the community. See 18 U.S.C. §
3142(g). These factors help the Court determine whether
“there are conditions of release that will reasonably
assure the appearance of the person as required and the
safety of any other person and the community….”
Government did not argue in support of its motion for
pretrial detention that Mr. Sha-hadey poses a risk of flight,
[Filing No. 26 at 2], and did not make that argument in the
pending motion. It also did not present evidence regarding
any drug or alcohol use by Mr. Shahadey. Accordingly, the
Court will consider the remaining § 3142(g) factors to
determine whether conditions of release could reasonably
ensure the safety of any person and the community. The
Government bears the burden of proof and must prove that
there is a danger to any other person or to the community by
clear and convincing evidence. 18 U.S.C. §3142(f)(2)(B)
(“The facts the judicial officer uses to support a
finding . . . that no condition or combination of conditions
will reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the
community shall be supported by clear and convincing
and circumstances of the offense.
Shahadey was a sworn deputy with the Vigo County
Sheriff's Department (“VCSD”), and
was assigned to the Vigo County School Corporation
(“VCSC”) as a School Security Officer
until he was placed on administrative leave as a result of
his November 2, 2016 arrest. Frank Fennell, Mr. Shahadey's
co-defendant, was the Facilities Director for VCSC. Mr.
Fennell was responsible for maintenance and servicing of all
VCSC facilities, and routinely submitted requisitions to the
VCSC Business Office which would then create Purchase Orders
that were sent to vendors authorizing them to perform work.
Once work was completed, the Business Office used VCSC funds
to pay the vendors for supplies or services rendered.
A, owned by Individual A, is a vendor for VCSC and performs
services such as tree trimming and tree and stump removal. In
connection with Business A's work for VCSC, Mr. Shahadey
and Mr. Fennell demanded kickbacks resulting in at least $80,
500 in inflated costs to VCSC. The kickback scheme took place
from early 2014 to October 2016, and entailed Individual A -
at the direction of Mr. Shahadey and Mr. Fennell - submitting
inflated and false estimates and invoices for work at VCSC
locations to Mr. Fennell. Mr. Fennell then awarded the work
contracts on VCSC's behalf to Business A. When the work
was completed, Mr. Fennell submitted the inflated invoices to
the VCSC Business Office. The VCSC Business Office then paid
Business A with VCSC funds, and Individual A then deposited
checks, withdrew cash, and paid cash back to Mr. Shahadey and
Mr. Fennell. This occurred with the majority of the 58 jobs
that Business A performed for VCSC from early 2014 to October
2016. There were also occasions when Business A did not
perform any services, and fake invoices were submitted for
payment to VCSC. From January 2014 to June 2016, VCSC paid
Business A more than $440, 000, and Individual A estimates
that only approximately $37, 520 related to legitimate
contracts that did not involve kickback payments.
8, 2016, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(“FBI”) publicly executed search
warrants at several VCSC buildings and interviewed Mr.
Fennell regarding receiving kickbacks. Even after the FBI
raid and interviews, Mr. Shahadey and Mr. Fennell continued
to engage in the kickback scheme.
of the evidence.
Court finds, for the purposes of the issue of detention only,
that the weight of the evidence against Mr. Shahadey - as
discussed above and as found by the Magistrate Judge - is
Mr. Shahadey's history and characteristics, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(g)(3) instructs the Court to consider Mr.
Shahadey's character, physical and mental condition,
family ties, employment, financial resources, length of
residence in the community, community ties, past conduct,
history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history,
and record concerning appearance at court proceedings, as
well as whether he was subject to any other criminal justice
supervision at the time of the charged offense.
Government presented clear and convincing evidence related to
Mr. Shahadey's history and characteristics, which
indicates a pattern of dishonesty, deceit and disregard for
the law, and thus weighs in favor of detention. This evidence
includes the following:
• Mr. Shahadey filed a police report stating that he
injured his knee while chasing an individual in the line of
duty, but Individual A was with Mr. Shahadey during the
incident and stated that Mr. Shahadey complained of his knee
injury immediately prior to the incident, and that Individual
A - not Mr. Shahadey - was actually the one who chased the
individual. Mr. Shahadey has filed a workers'
compensation claim, and has relied on the apparently false
police report to show that his injury occurred in the line of
duty. Mr. Shahadey represented to the Magistrate Judge (by