## Facts

- A federal indictment charged Carmen A. Tortora and others with RICO and related crimes tied to the Patriarca Family of La Cosa Nostra in New England.
- Tortora was alleged to be a Mafia “soldier” and was charged with RICO offenses and predicate acts including extortionate credit collection and Travel Act violations.
- The government moved for pretrial detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142, arguing no conditions could reasonably assure community safety.
- After detention hearings, a magistrate judge found Tortora dangerous and a persistent recidivist, with a serious history of violent crimes (including armed robbery) and crimes committed while on parole, and ordered detention based on dangerousness.
- Tortora sought district-court review without presenting new evidence, offering instead a detailed release plan.
- The district court ordered release on conditions including full-time house arrest (with limited exceptions), electronic monitoring, severe communication restrictions, a single phone line subject to a pen register, and posting a residence (owned by Tortora’s brother) as security; the court provided no factual findings or stated rationale.
- The government appealed, obtaining a stay and expedited review.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) in concluding that the proposed conditions would reasonably assure the safety of the community despite the magistrate’s dangerousness finding.
2. Whether house arrest, electronic monitoring, restrictive communication limits, and property security can adequately mitigate the danger posed by an alleged organized-crime participant with a violent, recidivist record.

## Decision

- The First Circuit reversed the district court’s release order and reinstated the magistrate judge’s detention order.
- The court held that, on the existing record, the proposed conditions did not reasonably assure community safety as required by § 3142(e).
- The court treated the magistrate’s detailed dangerousness findings as effectively unrebutted because the district court made no contrary findings and articulated no reasoning.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), detention is required when no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the community; dangerousness alone can justify detention apart from flight risk.
- “Reasonable assurance” does not require certainty, but courts must assess whether proposed conditions realistically control the identified risk.
- House arrest and electronic monitoring primarily report location; they do not prevent planning or directing criminal conduct, particularly where the defendant can act through intermediaries.
- Release regimes that depend heavily on the defendant’s good-faith compliance are inadequate where the record shows repeated noncompliance and recidivism.
- Posting property as security is generally more responsive to flight risk and may provide little deterrence against continued criminal activity.
- Conditions so elaborate and supervision-intensive that they resemble an extraordinary, ad hoc monitoring system may indicate that detention, not release, is the proper statutory result.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit concluded that the district court’s stringent release package still failed to provide reasonable assurance of community safety given Tortora’s violent recidivist history and alleged organized-crime role, and it therefore required pretrial detention under the Bail Reform Act.


United States v. Tortora, 922 F.2d 880 (1st Cir. 1990)