CUSTODY
United States District Court
District of Massachusetts (Boston)
CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:25ímjí03081íJDHí1
Case title: USA v. McIntire Date Filed: 04/18/2025
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Jessica
D. Hedges
Defendant (1)
Owen McIntire represented by Curtis Ray PouliotíAlvarez
Federal Public Defender
51 Sleeper Street
5th Floor
Boston, MA 02210
617í223í8061
Email: curtis_pouliotíalvarez@fd.org
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Assistant US Attorney
Pending Counts Disposition
None
Highest Offense Level (Opening)
None
Terminated Counts Disposition
None
Highest Offense Level
(Terminated)
None
Complaints Disposition
18 U.S.C. § 844(i)í MALICIOUS
DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY;
26 U.S.C. §§5845(a)(8) and (f),
5861(d) and 5871í UNLAWFUL
POSSESSION OF AN
UNREGISTERED
FIREARMíDESTRUCTIVE
Case 4:25-mj-00048-JAM Document 10 Filed 04/30/25 Page 1 of 4
1
DEVICE
Plaintiff
USA represented by Eric L. Hawkins
DOJíUSAO
Moakley Federal Courthouse
1 Courthouse Way
Suite 9200
Boston, MA 02210
617í947í6045
Email: eric.hawkins@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Assistant US Attorney
Sandra Gonzalez Sanchez
DOJíUSAO
Moakley Federal Courthouse
One Courthouse Way
Ste 9200
Boston, MA 02210
617í748í3273
Email: sandra.gonzalez.sanchez@usdoj.gov
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Email All Attorneys
Email All Attorneys and Additional Recipients
Date Filed # Docket Text
04/18/2025 1 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment as to Owen McIntire; Magistrate Judge
Jessica D. Hedges assigned to case. (MM) (Entered: 04/22/2025)
04/18/2025 Arrest (Rule 5) of Owen McIntire (MM) (Entered: 04/22/2025)
04/18/2025 2 Rule 5(c)(3) Documents Received as to Owen McIntire (Attachments: # 1 Copy of
complaint, # 2 Affidavit) (MM) (Entered: 04/22/2025)
04/18/2025 3 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jessica D.
Hedges: Initial Appearance in Rule 5(c)(3) Proceedings as to Owen McIntire held on
4/18/2025; case called; USMJ Hedges informs the Dft. of his Rule 5 rights and
charges; Dft.submits cja 23 form and requests counsel; FD Alvarez is appointed for the
proceeding in this district; the United States is ordered to disclose all exculpatory
information, in a timely manner, to the defendant; the Govt. states the maximum
penalties and moves for detention under 18 USC 3142(f)(1)(a),(f)(1)(e) and 18 USC
3142(f)(2)(A); the Dft. requested the detention hearing be scheduled for 4/22/25 @
12:00pm.; USMJ Hedges ordered the Dft. remanded to the custody of the US Marshal
pending a hearing on 4/22/25. (Attorneys present: AUSA Hawkins and FD Alvarez.
)Court Reporter Name and Contact or digital recording information: Digital
Recording. To order a copy of this Digital Recording, please email the Court at
https://forms.mad.uscourts.gov/Audio.html . For a transcript of this proceeding,
contact the Court by email at mad_transcripts@mad.uscourts.gov. (TFQ) (Entered:
Case 4:25-mj-00048-JAM Document 10 Filed 04/30/25 Page 2 of 4
2
04/22/2025)
04/18/2025 6 Magistrate Judge Jessica D. Hedges: ORDER entered. ORDER APPOINTING
FEDERAL DEFENDER PROGRAM as to Owen McIntire (TFQ) (Entered:
04/22/2025)
04/18/2025 7 Magistrate Judge Jessica D. Hedges: ORDER entered. ORDER PURSUANT TO
FEDERAL RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 5(f) entered as to Owen McIntire.
(TFQ) (Entered: 04/22/2025)
04/22/2025 4 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Curtis Ray PouliotíAlvarez appearing
for Owen McIntire. Type of Appearance: Federal Defender Office. (PouliotíAlvarez,
Curtis) (Entered: 04/22/2025)
04/22/2025 8 ELECTRONIC NOTICE OF HEARING as to Owen McIntire Detention hearing set
for 4/24/2024 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 15 (In person only) before Magistrate Judge
Jessica D. Hedges. Counsel for Mr. McIntire shall file a proposed plan for release at
least one day before the scheduled detention hearing. The plan for release need not
include an extensive recitation of applicable law, but it must set forth in reasonable
detail Mr. McIntires plan for release and the proposed conditions of such release,
including, but not limited to, Mr. McIntires proposed residence upon release, the status
of his employment, his ties to the community, and a description of programs or
resources which he may rely upon to support his compliance with the conditions of
release. Before the hearing, counsel for Mr. McIntire and for the Government shall
meaningfully confer with each other and with the U.S. Office of Probation and Pretrial
Services regarding Mr. McIntires plan for release. Counsel for the Government shall
be prepared to explain at the hearing why Mr. McIntires proposed conditions of release
are insufficient under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(TFQ) (Entered: 04/22/2025)
04/22/2025 9 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE Sandra Gonzalez Sanchez appearing for
USA. (Gonzalez Sanchez, Sandra) (Entered: 04/22/2025)
04/23/2025 10 Memorandum regarding Opposition to Government's Motion for Detention and Notice
of Proposed Release Plan as to Owen McIntire (PouliotíAlvarez, Curtis) (Entered:
04/23/2025)
04/24/2025 11 Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jessica D.
Hedges: Detention Hearing as to Owen McIntire held on 4/24/2025; case called;
counsel have agreed to proceed via proffer; Dft. waives identity hearing and
preliminary hearing; the Govt. proffers evidence and makes argument for detention;
the Dft. makes argument for release and proffers conditions of release; USMJ Hedges
makes finding Dft. can be released, sets conditions of release and orders the Dft. to
appear in the charging district, Thursday, 5/1/25 at 1:00 p.m. (CST). The hearing will
be in front of the Honorable Jill A. Morris,Courtroom 7E, Charles Evans Whittaker
United States Courthouse, 400 East Ninth Street, Kansas City, MO 64106 (Attorneys
present: AUSA Sanchez and FD Alvarez. )Court Reporter Name and Contact or digital
recording information: Digital Recording. To order a copy of this Digital Recording,
please email the Court at https://forms.mad.uscourts.gov/Audio.html . For a transcript
of this proceeding, contact the Court by email at mad_transcripts@mad.uscourts.gov.
(TFQ) (Entered: 04/24/2025)
04/24/2025 12 Magistrate Judge Jessica D. Hedges: ORDER entered. ORDER Setting Conditions of
Release as to Owen McIntire. (TFQ) (Entered: 04/24/2025)
04/24/2025 13 WAIVER of Rule 5 and 5.1 Hearings by Owen McIntire (TFQ) (Entered: 04/28/2025)
Case 4:25-mj-00048-JAM Document 10 Filed 04/30/25 Page 3 of 4
3
04/28/2025 14 Magistrate Judge Jessica D. Hedges: ORDER to Appear in the Western District of
Missouri entered. as to Owen McIntire (TFQ) (Entered: 04/28/2025)
Case 4:25-mj-00048-JAM Document 10 Filed 04/30/25 Page 4 of 4
4
Case 1:25-mj-03081-JDH Document 7 Filed 04/18/25 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
USA
Criminal Action No.
v. 1:25−MJ−03081−JDH
OWEN MCINTIRE
ORDER PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 5(f)
Jessica D. Hedges U.S.M.J.
Pursuant to the Due Process Protections Act, Public Law 116−182, 134 Sta. 894 (Oct. 21, 2020) and Rule
5(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, this court issues the following Order. The United States is
reminded of its obligation to disclose in a timely manner all exculpatory evidence to the defendant[s], that is,
all evidence that is material and favorable to the defendant[s] or tends to cast doubt on the United States' case,
as required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny. Specific categories for exculpatory
evidence that must be provided to the defense are set out in Local Rule 116.2. The failure to comply with this
Order may result in consequences including, but not limited to, the reversal of any conviction, the exclusion of
evidence, adverse jury instructions, dismissal of charges, contempt proceedings, disciplinary action, and/or
sanctions by the court.
/s/ − Jessica D. Hedges
Dated: April 22, 2025 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-mj-00048-JAM Document 10-1 Filed 04/30/25 Page 1 of 14
5
Case 1:25-mj-03081-JDH Document 10 Filed 04/23/25 Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) 1:25-MJ-03081
)
OWEN MCINTIRE )
OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR DETENTION AND NOTICE OF
PROPOSED RELEASE PLAN
Although the charges in this case are serious, and the circumstances of this prosecution are
unusual, those allegations do not justify the extraordinary remedy of pretrial detention. The
government has invoked a presumption based on the alleged use of a destructive device. But here
that presumption is rebutted by the overwhelming weight of the evidence under the statutory factors
that this Court must consider. Owen McIntire is an adolescent first-year college student with no
criminal history, deep ties to his community, and a stable, supportive home environment waiting for
him. He has well-documented medical and mental health needs—including autism spectrum disorder
(ASD), ADHD, depression, and gender dysphoria—that require ongoing care and structure, which
can only be provided in the community.
While the government has suggested political overtones to the alleged conduct, those
characterizations are speculative and not a substitute for the individualized, fact-based analysis the
Bail Reform Act demands. Courts must decide detention based on the evidence presented, not
rhetoric or conjecture. And the evidence here supports release on conditions that will ensure both
public safety and Owen’s appearance in court.
I. Legal Framework
Owen comes before the Court following his arrest in this District based upon an arrest warrant
for a two-count Complaint from the Western District of Missouri charging him with malicious
1
Case 4:25-mj-00048-JAM Document 10-1 Filed 04/30/25 Page 2 of 14
6
Case 1:25-mj-03081-JDH Document 10 Filed 04/23/25 Page 2 of 7
damage to property and possession of an unregistered destructive device. At the initial appearance
before the Court pursuant to Rule 5, the government moved for detention citing 18 U.S.C. §
3142(f)(1)(A) (i.e. “danger to the community”) and (f)(2)(A) (i.e. “serious risk of flight”). The
government also moved for detention citing the presumption in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(C) (i.e.
“federal crime of terrorism”).
Under the statutory scheme of the Bail Reform Act, “it is only a ‘limited group of offenders’
who should be detained pending trial.” United States v. Shakur, 817 F.2d 189, 195 (2d Cir. 1987)
(quoting S. Rep. No. 98-225, at 7 (1984), as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 3189); see also
United States v. Byrd, 969 F.2d 106, 109 (5th Cir. 1992) (“There can be no doubt that this Act clearly
favors nondetention.”). One charged with a crime is, after all, presumed innocent. See generally Stack
v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 4 (1951). Due to the crucial interests involved, it follows that a “case-by-case”
approach is required at any stage of the case in assessing the propriety of pretrial detention. See
United States v. Gonzales-Claudio, 806 F.2d 334, 340 (2d Cir. 1986) (discussing due process analysis
for evaluating propriety of prolonged pretrial detention, and the interests at stake) (citations omitted),
cert. dismissed sub nom., Melendez-Carrion v. United States, 479 U.S. 978 (1986).
In this case, the government argues that a rebuttable presumption of detention arises under 18
U.S.C. §3142(e)(3)(C). However, even if the Court finds the government meets its burden that the
presumption applies, the Court may still release Owen “as long as the defendant has presented some
evidence and the magistrate or judge has evaluated all of the evidence with Congress's view of the
general problem in mind.” United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 384 (1st Cir. 1985) (emphasis
added).
Indeed, the presumption of detention is rebutted by “[a]ny evidence favorable to a defendant
that comes within a category listed in § 3142(g) . . . including evidence of their marital, family and
employment status, ties to and role in the community . . . and other types of evidence encompassed
2
Case 4:25-mj-00048-JAM Document 10-1 Filed 04/30/25 Page 3 of 14
7
Case 1:25-mj-03081-JDH Document 10 Filed 04/23/25 Page 3 of 7
in § 3142(g)(3).” Id. (emphasis added); Jessup, 757 F.2d at 384. “Any evidence of economic and
social stability” can rebut the presumption. Dominguez, 783 F.2d at 707. If a defendant “come[s]
forward with some evidence” pursuant to § 3142(g), the presumption of flight risk and dangerousness
is definitively rebutted. Id. (Once this burden of production is met, the presumption is ‘rebutted.’”)
(quoting Jessup, 757 F.2d at 384); see also O’Brien, 895 F.2d at 816 (finding presumption of flight
risk rebutted by evidence of effectiveness of electronic monitoring ankle bracelet together with
posting of defendant’s home). The government always bears the burden of persuasion. Id.; Jessup,
757 F.2d at 384; United States v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400, 405 (2d Cir. 1985).
After the presumption is rebutted, the Court must weigh the presumption against all the other
evidence about the defendant’s history and characteristics that tilts the scale in favor of release. See
Dominguez, 783 F.2d at 707 (“[T]he 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).”); Jessup, 757 F.2d at 384 (holding that the judge should
consider the rebutted presumption along with the § 3142(g) factors). The Court should not give the
presumption undue weight if evidence relating to other § 3142(g) factors support release.
II. Owen’s Personal History
Owen McIntire is a 19-year-old first-year college student with no prior criminal record,
history of violence, or prior failures to appear.1 He has lived in the Western District of Missouri
nearly his entire life, and his life there reflects stability, support, and structure. At the time of his
arrest, he was pursuing a degree in physics at the University of Massachusetts at Boston.
For all but the past seven months, Owen has lived with and relied on the support of his parents.
Diagnosed at age 10 with ASD and ADHD, Owen has always required a highly structured and
1
Owen is in his first year of college but is considered a sophomore due to the credits he accumulated in high school.
3
Case 4:25-mj-00048-JAM Document 10-1 Filed 04/30/25 Page 4 of 14
8
Case 1:25-mj-03081-JDH Document 10 Filed 04/23/25 Page 4 of 7
supportive environment to thrive. His parents have long provided that stability and are uniquely
equipped to continue doing so while this case is pending. Dr. David McIntire, Owen’s father, is a
retired college professor. Owen’s mother, Michelle McIntire, works out of the home, providing
private voice and piano lessons, and is president of her local chapter of the National Association of
Teaching Singers. Both parents can be home during all the times that Owen is there and are willing
and able to serve as third-party custodians.
As a child, Owen trained in ballet from ages 8 to 15, where he found the structure he needed
as well as a creative outlet and community. Ultimately, he stepped away from dance when the time
commitment began to interfere with his studies. This decision was made during a particularly difficult
period. Around the same time, Owen was diagnosed with depression, a condition that he continues
to manage with therapy and daily medication. Rather than retreating, Owen sought out new forms of
connection and community that allowed him to also focus on his academics. In his sophomore year
of high school, he joined the scholar bowl and robotics clubs at his school. There he found intellectual
engagement and lasting friendships. He also worked at Jimmy John’s in his junior and senior years.
The friendships he developed from ballet, his high school activities, and his job are firmly rooted in
Missouri and are meaningful community ties.
Medically, Owen faces serious and ongoing needs. He takes daily medications for depression
and ADHD and has consistently demonstrated insight into his diagnoses and compliance with his
treatment. He also receives gender-affirming medical care, which began in March of this year and is
likely to be interrupted or terminated entirely if he remains in pretrial detention. This care, along with
mental health support, is integral to his wellbeing. By moving back home with his parents, he will
have access to the care providers who are familiar with him and his specific needs.
Since his arrest, Owen has identified experienced attorneys in the prosecution district who
have agreed to represent him on the substantive case, and they are preparing to enter their appearance.
4
Case 4:25-mj-00048-JAM Document 10-1 Filed 04/30/25 Page 5 of 14
9
Case 1:25-mj-03081-JDH Document 10 Filed 04/23/25 Page 5 of 7
The decision to seek counsel and begin preparing his defense before even appearing in the
prosecuting district demonstrates that he has no intention of fleeing or avoiding prosecution.
III. Charges
The Government alleges two Tesla Cybertrucks were ignited on March 17, 2025 at 11:16
p.m. at 10111 State Line Road, Kansas City, Missouri, in the asphalt parking lot of a car dealership.
According to the dealership’s website, it closed at 7:00 p.m. that day. The Government alleges that
a primitive ignition device informally referred to as a “Molotov cocktail” was utilized. Its
components were alleged to be empty apple cider vinegar bottles filled with gasoline and dish
towels. The Government alleges that two devices were used, but one failed. The two Cybertrucks
were electric vehicles that were not filled with additional gasoline. According to video footage from
contemporaneous news reports, the fire occurred in the center of the deserted parking lot, away from
both the concrete dealership structure and State Line Road. 2 Two Tesla charging stations, valued
at $550 each, were also damaged.
2
News footage highlights what appears to be a serious act of local vandalism, rather than a national security event that
one would expect to garner the personal attention of all four top federal law enforcement officials. Compare
https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/two-tesla-cyber-trucks-burned-overnight; with
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/kansas-city-resident-arrested-and-charged-connection-tesla-arson.
5
Case 4:25-mj-00048-JAM Document 10-1 Filed 04/30/25 Page 6 of 14
10
Case 1:25-mj-03081-JDH Document 10 Filed 04/23/25 Page 6 of 7
IV. Argument
Release is warranted here because there are numerous facts under § 3142(g) that rebut the
presumption of detention and demonstrate there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure
both Owen’s appearance in court and the safety of the community. The law is clear that (1) very little
is required for a defendant to rebut the presumption, and (2) courts must weigh the rebutted
presumption against every factor that militates in favor of release before detaining a defendant. In
addition, it is impermissible to detain a defendant in a presumption case based solely on evidence of
past dangerousness, the nature of the crime charged, or the weight of the evidence.
As detailed herein, there is more than “some” evidence that Owen will not flee or endanger
the community if released. The presumption is therefore rebutted in this case. Owen has presented
evidence that he is a 19-year-old college student with no criminal history and no record of violent
conduct, and Owen has demonstrated no behaviors that would suggest his inability or unwillingness
to follow the Court’s orders. He is medically and psychologically vulnerable and requires ongoing
care, and a structured and supportive home is ready to meet those needs. His parents are prepared to
serve as third-party custodians and are familiar with his specific needs. He will likely be reemployed
with Jimmy John’s upon his release and will be back in the community where he has built significant
relationships. He has nowhere to go, no financial means, nor even a valid passport to effectuate flight.
And he is not an unmanageable danger to the community, particularly given the wide range of release
conditions available to the Court.
V. Proposed Conditions
The following conditions of release under § 3142(c)(1)(B), and any other conditions the Court
deems necessary, will reasonably assure Owen’s appearance in court and the safety of the
community.
Case 4:25-mj-00048-JAM Document 10-1 Filed 04/30/25 Page 7 of 14
11
Case 1:25-mj-03081-JDH Document 10 Filed 04/23/25 Page 7 of 7
1. Place Owen in custody of his mother and father, Dr. David and Michelle McIntire, as third-
party custodians “who agree[] to assume supervision and to report any violation of a release
condition to the court.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(i).
2. Owen shall reside with his parents at the address provided to the government and Probation.
3. Home confinement with location monitoring. Exceptions for religious service, medical
appointments, legal appointments, court, and employment to be approved by his supervising
officer.
4. Maintain or actively seek employment or an education program.
5. Restriction of travel to the Western District of Missouri and Wyandotte and Johnson
Counties.
6. Report as directed to pretrial services.
7. Continue mental health treatment and remain compliant with prescribed medications and
treatment plan.
8. Any other condition that the Court deems appropriate.
Because there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure Owen’s appearance in
court and the safety of the community, the Court should deny the government’s motion for detention.
Pursuant to this Court’s text order, undersigned counsel has conferred with the government
regarding these proposed conditions. The proposed conditions were also provided to the probation
office.
OWEN MCINTIRE
By his attorney,
/s/ Curtis Pouliot-Alvarez
Curtis Pouliot-Alvarez, BBO #693348
Assistant Federal Defender
Federal Defender Office
51 Sleeper Street, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02210
Tel: 617-223-8061
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
on April 23, 2025.
/s/ Curtis Pouliot-Alvarez
7
Case 4:25-mj-00048-JAM Document 10-1 Filed 04/30/25 Page 8 of 14
12
Case 1:25-mj-03081-JDH Document 12 Filed 04/24/25 Page 1 of 4
Case 4:25-mj-00048-JAM Document 10-1 Filed 04/30/25 Page 9 of 14
13
Case 1:25-mj-03081-JDH Document 12 Filed 04/24/25 Page 2 of 4
Case 4:25-mj-00048-JAM Document 10-1 Filed 04/30/25 Page 10 of 14
14
Case 1:25-mj-03081-JDH Document 12 Filed 04/24/25 Page 3 of 4
Case 4:25-mj-00048-JAM Document 10-1 Filed 04/30/25 Page 11 of 14
15
Case 1:25-mj-03081-JDH Document 12 Filed 04/24/25 Page 4 of 4
Case 4:25-mj-00048-JAM Document 10-1 Filed 04/30/25 Page 12 of 14
16
Case 1:25-mj-03081-JDH Document 13 Filed 04/24/25 Page 1 of 1
Case 4:25-mj-00048-JAM Document 10-1 Filed 04/30/25 Page 13 of 14
17
Case 1:25-mj-03081-JDH Document 14 Filed 04/28/25 Page 1 of 1
AO 467 (Rev. 01/09) Order Requiring a Defendant to Appear in the District Where Charges are Pending and Transferring Bail
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
District of
__________ Massachusetts
District of __________
United States of America )
v. ) Case No. 25-3081-JDH
Owen McIntire )
) Charging District: Western District of Missouri
Defendant ) Charging District’s Case No. 4:25-mj-00048
ORDER REQUIRING A DEFENDANT TO APPEAR IN THE DISTRICT
WHERE CHARGES ARE PENDING AND TRANSFERRING BAIL
After a hearing in this court, the defendant is released from custody and ordered to appear in the district court
where the charges are pending to answer those charges. If the time to appear in that court has not yet been set, the
defendant must appear when notified to do so. Otherwise, the time and place to appear in that court are:
Place: Charles Evans Whittaker United States Courthouse Courtroom No.: Courtroom 7E
400 East Ninth Street, Kansas City, MO
Date and Time: 5/1/2025 1:00 pm
The clerk is ordered to transfer any bail deposited in the registry of this court to the clerk of the court where the
charges are pending.
Date: 04/28/2025 /s/Jessica D Hedges
Judge’s signature
Jessica D. Hedges US Magistrate Judge
Printed name and title
Case 4:25-mj-00048-JAM Document 10-1 Filed 04/30/25 Page 14 of 14
18
