Reported / Citable
Background
Scott Joseph Kopas is charged with three counts of sexual exploitation of children and one enhanced count of possessing child pornography. He was arrested in October 2025 and detained pending trial after an October 15 detention hearing. Trial was set for July 13, 2026.
Kopas moved to reopen the detention hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(B), contending that a more suitable residence had become available because it was no longer occupied. The government opposed the request, arguing that the residence and its status had been known and discussed at the original hearing.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower denied the motion. Section 3142(f)(2)(B) permits reopening only when previously unknown information materially bears on whether release conditions can reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance and community safety. Kopas did not establish that the residence was previously unknown to him.
The court also held that the residence’s availability was not material to the detention determination. The original detention ruling did not rest solely on the statutory presumption arising from the charged offenses; it considered the § 3142(g) factors and found no release conditions sufficient to protect the community. The alleged hidden-camera recordings of young stepdaughters and another child, the evidence recovered from Kopas’s computer drives, his technological sophistication, and access to multiple residences supported that conclusion.
Key Takeaways
- A request to reopen detention requires genuinely new information, not merely a changed availability of information known at the original hearing.
- The new information must materially affect whether release conditions can ensure appearance and community safety.
- A proposed new residence did not overcome the court’s concerns that Kopas could retain the means and opportunity to commit similar alleged offenses.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that a defendant cannot reopen a detention hearing simply by offering a revised housing proposal when that proposal does not address the safety concerns underlying detention. Courts may deny reopening where the original § 3142(g) analysis independently supports detention, even if the statutory detention presumption is contested.