Order of Detention — United States v. Fiege (Dkt. 115, D. Minn.)

Summary

An Order of Detention in United States of America v. Jared John Fiege, Criminal No. 21-55 (MJD), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, dated May 21, 2026 and signed by United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins. The order follows a May 7, 2026 detention and preliminary hearing on a petition to revoke supervised release, alleging that the defendant possessed sensitive personal identifiers and an internet-capable device without authorization. It records testimony from U.S. Probation Officer Corey Grandner about a traffic citation issued April 1, 2026. Granting the government's motion for detention, the order commits the defendant to the custody of the Attorney General.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

CASE 0:21-cr-00055-MJD-LIB     Doc. 115   Filed 05/22/26   Page 1 of 5




                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
                      Criminal No. 21-55 (MJD)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                   Plaintiff,

       v.
                                                 ORDER OF DETENTION
JARED JOHN FIEGE,

                   Defendant,


      On May 7, 2026, Jared Fiege appeared for a detention and preliminary

hearing the District of Minnesota on a petition for supervised release

revocation. Mr. Fiege was represented by Catherine Turner, Esq., and

Assistant United States Attorney Katharine T. Buzicky represented the

United States. This Order sets forth the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions

of law with respect to probable cause for the alleged violations, and detention

or release of Mr. Fiege.

                                FINDINGS OF FACT

      1.    Mr. Fiege is alleged to have violated the terms of his supervised

release by possessing and having access to sensitive personal identifiers, and

possessing an internet-capable device without authorization. At Mr. Fiege’s

initial appearance, the United States made an oral motion for detention. The

United States Probation Office recommended detention.

      CASE 0:21-cr-00055-MJD-LIB    Doc. 115   Filed 05/22/26   Page 2 of 5




      2.    Mr. Fiege exercised his right to a hearing on probable cause. The

government called U.S. Probation Officer Corey Grandner, who testified that

on April 1, 2026, Mr. Fiege was cited by police after a traffic camera captured

an image of him holding a smart phone while driving. Mr. Fiege reported the

contact to Officer Grandner but claimed he was holding a GPS device.

      A few days later, Officer Grandner conducted an unannounced visit to

Mr. Fiege’s home. During the visit, Officer Grandner searched the home, Mr.

Fiege’s person, and his car. The search yielded an iPhone and an Android smart

phone, neither of which Mr. Fiege had approval to possess. Mr. Fiege then

admitted the traffic camera captured him holding the iPhone.

      A review of the iPhone revealed images of other individuals’ personal

information, to include Social Security numbers, insurance information, and

credit card information. Officer Smith contacted one of the individuals whose

information was on the iPhone. That individual stated he never gave Mr. Fiege

permission to have access to his sensitive personal information.

      3.    Mr. Fiege also exercised his right to a detention hearing. The

government offered Officer Grandner’s testimony and several exhibits

depicting information extracted from the iPhone as the basis for its motion for

detention. Mr. Fiege proffered release to a family member’s home as an

alternative to detention.

                                   DISCUSSION

                                      2

      CASE 0:21-cr-00055-MJD-LIB    Doc. 115   Filed 05/22/26   Page 3 of 5




      The Court must determine whether probable cause exists to support the

allegations in a petition for supervised release revocation. Probable cause can

be established through evidence and testimony, or by the defendant’s knowing

and voluntary waiver of a hearing on that issue. Here, the Court finds there is

probable cause that Mr. Fiege violated the terms of his supervised release as

set forth in the petition submitted by Officer Grandner. Probable cause was

established through the petition, Officer Grandner’s testimony, and the

government’s exhibits.

      The appropriate analysis for deciding the issue of release from custody

pending disposition of revocation of supervised released proceedings is

governed by Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 46(d) and 32.1(a)(6). These

rules provide:

            Rule 46. Release from Custody; Supervising Detention

            ****
            (d) Pending Hearing on a Violation of Probation or
            Supervised Release. Rule 32.1(a)(6) governs release pending a
            hearing on a violation of probation or supervised release.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 46(d).

            32.1. Revoking or Modifying Probation or Supervised
            Release
            (a) Initial Appearance.

                  ****
                  (6) Release or Detention. The magistrate judge may
                  release or detain the person under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)
                  pending further proceedings. The burden of establishing

                                       3

      CASE 0:21-cr-00055-MJD-LIB     Doc. 115   Filed 05/22/26   Page 4 of 5




                  that the person will not flee or pose a danger to any other
                  person or to the community rests with the person.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a)(6).

      18 U.S.C § 3143(a) provides:

            (a) Release or detention pending sentence.-(1) ... the judicial
                officer shall order that a person who has been found guilty of
                an offense and who is awaiting imposition or execution of
                sentence, ... be detained, unless the judicial officer finds by
                clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to
                flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the
                community if released under section 3142(b) or (c)....

      The Court must detain Mr. Fiege unless the Court finds by clear and

convincing evidence that he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety

of any other person or the community if released. Mr. Fiege bears the burden

of establishing that he will not flee or pose a danger to any other person or to

the community.

      Here, the Court finds Mr. Fiege has not met his burden with respect to

the issue of danger to the community, so detention is appropriate. Mr. Fiege’s

conduct and related deception poses a risk to the public, especially in light of

his offense of conviction. His efforts to conceal the iPhone from his supervising

officer are of particular concern to the Court. In making this finding, the Court

has considered Mr. Fiege’s arguments and proposed alternative to detention

but finds they are insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the statute.

                                CONCLUSION


                                        4

      CASE 0:21-cr-00055-MJD-LIB     Doc. 115   Filed 05/22/26   Page 5 of 5




      The Court concludes that no condition or combination of conditions of

bond will reasonably ensure the safety of the community. Accordingly,

      IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

      1.      The motion of the United States for detention of Jared John Fiege

is granted;

      2.      Mr. Fiege is committed to the custody of the Attorney General;

      3.      Mr. Fiege shall be afforded reasonable opportunity to consult

privately with his lawyer; and

      4.      Upon Order of the Court or request by the United States Attorney,

the person in charge of the corrections facility in which Mr. Fiege is confined

shall deliver him to the United States Marshal for the purpose of appearance

in connection with a court proceeding.



Dated: May 21, 2026                          S/Shannon G. Elkins
                                             The Honorable Shannon G. Elkins
                                             United States Magistrate Judge




                                         5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mnd.193372.115.0.pdf

Size

124,607 bytes

SHA-256

59e9b7895c2694aae01eaabca2c190316a306104ec4286fbfa689dfa4c42eb13

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mnd.193372.115.0.pdf

Original

archive.org