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.

0 comments:

Our Phone #

Virginia

Fairfax 703-278-0405
Prince William 703-278-0405
Loudoun 703-278-0405
Fredericksburg 703-278-0405
Richmond 804-201-9009
Virginia beach 757-512-5002
Lynchburg 434-509-4004
Click here to call us toll free Sris Lawyer Click here to call us toll free

Social Icons

Powered by Blogger.

Popular Posts