Thursday, March 20, 2014
Federal DUI Ticket Virginia Lawyers Physical Injury
If you have been
charged with DUI / DWI which took place on a road owned by the Federal
government, National Park Service land, place on federally owned property,
including military bases or other government-owned lands or roads, such as the
GW Parkway and the Pentagon parking lot then you will be prosecuted in a
Federal court.
Under 36 CFR 4.23
Operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs
"(a) Operating or being in actual physical control
of a motor vehicle is prohibited while:
(1)
Under the influence of alcohol, or a drug, or drugs, or any combination
thereof, to a degree that renders the operator incapable of safe operation; or
(2)
The alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath is 0.08
grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 0.08 grams or more of
alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Provided however, that if State law that
applies to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol
establishes more restrictive limits of alcohol concentration in the operator's
blood or breath, those limits supersede the limits specified in this
paragraph."
Below is a sample
case of federal DUI in Virginia as interpreted by a lawyer in our firm.
Have you been
charged with federal DUI in Virginia and you are wondering what the penalty is
for federal DUI and need a lawyer to defend you?
Are you concerned
about the consequences of being charged with federal DUI in Virginia and you
are wondering what the penalty is for federal DUI?
For a lot of our
clients, a charge of federal DUI can result in the loss of their job, their
security clearance, etc.
Don’t risk going
to court without a lawyer, if you have been charged with a crime of federal DUI
in Virginia.
We have client
meeting locations in Fairfax Prince William Richmond Loudoun Virginia Beach
Fredericksburg Lynchburg.
Our law firm has
the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get
the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
Geraldo v. United
States
Facts:
It was assumed
that it had been correct to hold that DUI involved conduct that presented
serious potential risk of physical injury to another under § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).
But DUI was simply too unlike § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii)'s listed examples to believe
that Congress intended the provision to cover it. The listed examples --
burglary, arson, extortion, or crimes involving the use of explosives --
illustrated the kinds of crimes that fell within the statute's scope. Their
presence indicated that the statute covered only similar crimes, rather than
every crime that presented a serious potential risk of physical injury to
another. To give effect to every clause and word of § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), the
examples were read as limiting the crimes that § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) covered to
crimes that were roughly similar, in kind as well as in degree of risk posed,
to the examples themselves. For purposes only of § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), a prior
record of DUI, a strict liability crime, differed from a prior record of
violent and aggressive crimes committed intentionally such as those listed,
which were associated with a likelihood of future violent, aggressive, and
purposeful "armed career criminal" behavior.
If you are facing
a federal DUI case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747
Holdings:
The Federal Court
made the following holding:
- 18 U.S.C.S. §
924(e)(2)(B)(ii)'s listed examples -- burglary, arson, extortion, or
crimes involving the use of explosives -- illustrate the kinds of crimes
that fall within the statute's scope. Their presence indicates that the
statute covers only similar crimes, rather than every crime that presents
a serious potential risk of physical injury to another. 18 U.S.C.S. §
924(e)(2)(B)(ii). Driving under the influence of alcohol differs from 18
U.S.C.S. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii)'s example crimes -- burglary, arson,
extortion, and crimes involving the use of explosives -- in at least one
pertinent, and important, respect. The listed crimes all typically involve
purposeful, "violent," and "aggressive" conduct. That
conduct is such that it makes more likely that an offender, later
possessing a gun, will use that gun deliberately to harm a victim. Crimes
committed in such a purposeful, violent, and aggressive manner are
potentially more dangerous when firearms are involved. And such crimes are
characteristic of the armed career criminal, the eponym of the
statute.
We have client
meeting locations in Fairfax Prince William Richmond Loudoun Virginia Beach
Fredericksburg Lynchburg.
Our law firm has
the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get
the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are
provided by the SRIS Law Group. They
represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for
their authoritative content.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Our Phone #
Powered by Blogger.
Popular Posts
-
If you have been charged with DUI / DWI which took place on a road owned by the Federal government, National Park Service land, place on fe...
-
If you have been charged with DUI / DWI which took place on a road owned by the Federal government, National Park Service land, place on fe...
-
If you have been charged with DUI / DWI which took place on a road owned by the Federal government, National Park Service land, place on fe...
-
If you have been charged with DUI / DWI which took place on a road owned by the Federal government, National Park Service land, place on fe...
-
If you have been charged with DUI / DWI which took place on a road owned by the Federal government, National Park Service land, place on fe...
0 comments:
Post a Comment