United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER 
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
matter is before the Court on the Defendant's
“Motion to reconsider detention hearing/Writof
Mandamus/HabeausCorpus” [ECF No. 24], filed pro se on
November 4, 2019. The Court is construing this as a Motion
for Review of Detention pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b).
For the reasons stated below, the Defendant's Motion is
October 9, 2019, FBI Special Agent Andrew Chonowski filed a
criminal complaint [ECF No. 1] against Defendant Omarr
Williams. The Agent alleged that the Defendant and a
co-conspirator committed three bank robberies in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Aff. in Supp. of App. for a Compl.,
¶ 3, ECF No. 1. The first alleged robbery occurred on
September 5, 2019, at the U.S. Federal Credit Union in Gary,
Indiana. Id. ¶ 4. The Agent alleged that two
unidentified male subjects, both of whom were African
American and dressed as construction workers, entered the
credit union. Id. ¶¶ 4, 8. The first
suspect displayed a black handgun to the bank teller and
proclaimed that “[t]his is a robbery.”
Id. ¶ 5. The second suspect tugged at something
in his shirt, which the bank teller believed was a weapon.
Id. ¶ 6. Ultimately, the suspects stole $7,
541.00 from the credit union. Id. ¶¶ 7, 9.
The bank tellers observed the suspects leave the bank in a
silver KIA minivan. Id. Â¶ 8.
second alleged robbery occurred on September 23, 2019, at the
Horizon Bank in Hammond, Indiana. Id. ¶ 12. The
first suspect was wearing a Halloween mask, while the other
suspect was dressed as a construction worker. Id.
The second suspect pulled out a silver revolver and pointed
it as the bank teller. Id. ¶ 14. The suspects
took $12, 541.00 from the bank and fled the scene on
bicycles. Id. ¶¶ 16-17.
third alleged robbery occurred on October 8, 2019, at the
First Financial Bank in Hammond, Indiana. Id. ¶
20. The first suspect wore a Golden State Warriors hat and
dark sunglasses. Id. The second suspect wore a beige
hat, a long sleeve shirt, and dark sunglasses. Id.
The first suspect pointed a black firearm at the bank teller
and told her to “[o]pen the drawers and give me
everything inside, and if you activate the panic alarm
I'll shoot you.” Id. ¶ 21. The
suspects took $4, 804.00 from the bank. Id. ¶
23. However, the bank tellers placed a GPS tracking device
with the stolen money. Id. ¶ 26. The suspects
fled the scene of the crime in a black minivan. Id.
¶ 22. Police officers followed the GPS device to the 500
block of Burr Street in Gary, Indiana. Id. ¶
27. A black KIA minivan was located at 540 Burr Street, and
officers observed a black male hiding in the tree line of the
wooded area immediately north of 540 Burr Street.
Id. ¶¶ 27-28. This individual was
identified as Anthony H. Day, who is a codefendant in this
case. Id. ¶ 28. Witnesses observed a second
black male exiting this area on foot. Id. ¶ 29.
Ultimately, the Lake County Sheriff's Department
apprehended this suspect approximately two blocks away from
the black KIA minivan. Id. The suspect, who was
later identified as Defendant Omarr Williams, was armed with
a black handgun and possessed a handbag containing $1, 597.00
in currency. Id. Following their arrest,
investigators discovered that the KIA minivan was
spray-painted black, but that its original color was silver.
Id. ¶ 30. Investigators searched the area
adjacent to the KIA minivan and found a silver revolver, an
automatic rifle, black rubber gloves, pieces of the GPS
tracker, a blue bag containing $3, 146 in currency, and
clothing which was consistent with what the suspects wore in
the third alleged robbery. Id. ¶¶ 31-32.
morning of October 11, 2019, a probation officer issued a
Pretrial Services Report [ECF No. 7] for the Defendant. The
probation officer concluded that “it is unknown if
there are a combination of conditions that will reasonably
assure the appearance of the defendant . . . and the safety
of the community. Therefore, I respectfully recommend the
defendant be detained at this time.” Id. at 7.
The probation officer highlighted the Defendant's
significant criminal history which included an October 2017
conviction for armed robbery. See Id. at
2-6. The probation officer also indicated that the Defendant
was currently on probation, but that a petition to revoke his
probation was currently pending. Id. at 5. Moreover,
the probation officer noted that the Defendant had missed
several court dates which necessitated the issuance of a
bench warrant for his arrest. See Id. at
5-6. The probation officer also noted the Defendant's use
of aliases. Id. at 6.
afternoon of October 11, 2019, Magistrate Judge Joshua P.
Kolar conducted a probable cause and detention hearing.
See Probable Cause and Detention Hearing, ECF No. 8.
At the hearing, the Defendant stated he was a Moorish
national who was not bound by the laws or Constitution of the
United States of America. Hr'g Tr., p. 12, Oct. 11, 2019,
ECF No. 34. Ultimately, Judge Kolar found that the Complaint
was supported by probable cause, Id. at 18, and the
Government moved to detain the Defendant without bond,
Id. at 26. The Defendant argued that “[n]o
victim ever said I did anything. That is my assurance. No
victim said I did anything. We here on [an]
assumption.” Id. at 27. The prosecutor argued
that “the Defendant has a substantial criminal history.
He has failed-he's currently on probation, has a warrant
out for his arrest because he failed to appear. He failed to
comply with the rules of probation . . . .”
Id. at 28. The prosecutor further argued as follows:
I don't think that there's any combination of-of
anything that would ensure his appearance in court and ensure
that he's not a danger to the community. His criminal
history is extensive. His failures to appear and flight is
extensive, his use of aliases. He's indicated to the
Court numerous times that he doesn't believe himself
bound by the law or the Constitution of the United States of
Id. at 29. Based upon this, Judge Kolar ordered that
the Defendant be detained awaiting trial. Id. at 32.
On October 16, 2019, Judge Kolar issued an Amended Order of
Detention [ECF No. 10] which found that there were no
conditions or combinations of conditions that would
reasonably assure the Defendant's continued appearance
and the safety of the community.
Defendant argues that the Court should reverse Judge
Kolar's detention order. For the reasons stated below,
the Defendant's request is DENIED.
judicial officer shall hold a hearing to determine whether
any condition or combination of conditions . . . will
reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required
and the safety of any other person and the community . . .
.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). When determining if there
are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the
appearance of the person and the safety of the community,
courts consider the following factors: (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. 18 U.S.C. §
3142(g). “If, after a hearing pursuant to the
provisions of subsection (f) of this section, the judicial
officer finds 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, such judicial officer shall order the detention of
the person before trial.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1).
“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
evidence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(B); United
States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 751 (1987).
there is a rebuttable presumption that no condition or
combination of conditions will reasonably assure the
appearance of the person and the safety of the community if
the judicial officer finds that there is probable cause to
believe that the person committed a crime of violence. 18
U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(B). The Seventh Circuit has
concluded that bank robbery per se is a crime of violence.
United States v. Armour,840 F.3d 904, 907 (7th Cir.
2016) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)); United
States v. Jones,932 F.2d 624, 625 (7th Cir. 1991). The
applicable presumption is rebutted “when the defendant
meets a ‘burden of production' by coming forward
with some evidence that he will not flee or endanger the
community if released.” United States v.
Dominguez,783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986).
“Once this burden of production is met, . . . the
rebutted presumption is not erased. Instead it remains in the
case as an evidentiary finding militating against release, to
be weighed along with other evidence relevant to factors
listed in § 3142(g).” Id. (citing
United States v. Jessup,757 F.2d 378, 384 (1st Cir.
1985)); see alsoUnited States v. Diaz, 777
F.2d 1236, 1238 (7th Cir. 1985) (“For although the