Supreme Court Concludes that DUI is not a “Violent Felony” for Purposes of Armed Career Criminal Law

October 4, 2008 by Leave a Comment

Very few DUI cases find their way to the United States Supreme Court.  Generally DUI cases are a matter of state law and over the years, the Supreme Court has been fairly deferential to the arguments put forth by lawyers representing the government and police departments.  Obviously everyone supports the goal of removing impaired drivers from the road, and groups like MADD have done a good job in keeping political pressure on lawmakers to make DUI punishments harsher.

Nevertheless, the law does not treat every DUI defendant the same way because some DUI offenders are more culpable than others.  Further, the law requires that the prosecutor prove his case.  It is not enough that the police officer “thought” that an individual was under the influence – there needs to be proof, which can include blood test, breath tests and other types of evidence.

Recently, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Begay v. United States, a decision which was released in April, 2008.  In the Begay case, the defendant (Begay) was arrested in New Mexico for unlawfully possessing a firearm, a violation of federal law.  Mr. Begay was a convicted felon and thus was not permitted to possess a gun.

Following a trial, the federal judge hearing the case sentenced Mr. Begay to 15 years under the Armed Career Criminal Act, which mandates a 15 year sentence to a felon who is convicted of possessing a firearm and who has three or more convictions for “violent felonies.”  The violent felonies relied up on by the judge were Mr. Begay’s 12 DUI convictions.

Clearly, Mr. Begay is not a sympathetic defendant.  However, the law requires three or more convictions for violent felonies.  The Supreme Court held that DUIs are not violent felonies because a DUI is usually not an intentioal act to hurt another person, and because the examples of violent felonies set out in the Armed Career Criminal Act were of a substantially different nature than a DUI.

Does this mean that Mr. Begay is not a dangerous person or that he should not be incarcerated?  No.  It does mean that he should not be convicted of a crime when his conduct does not equal the conduct procsribed in the statute.

Filed Under: Punishment issues, Trial issues Tagged With: , , ,

Don’t Forget to Buckle Up!

May 24, 2008 by Leave a Comment

On this Memorial Day, 2008 weekend, I would like to take a minute to remind all readers of this blog about the importance of wearing seat belts.  Remember, the goal of a DUI or criminal defense lawyer is not to encourage people to break the law.  And, at least in my opinion, criminal defense lawyers are not doing their jobs if they don’t make an effort to get their clients help and assistance so that those clients will not reenter the criminal defense system.

Yes, there are cases that turn on technicalities.  And, yes, there are very good reasons to keep police officer and prosecutors honest – the court system is designed to be adversarial and the natural tendency of the State’s representatives will be to assume every defendant is guilty and to push for hard line punishment.  Defense lawyers usually have a different view of what is reasonable and they have a more positive view about the nature of their clients.

Often, the system works just fine.  Usually, represented defendants will conclude that the system works a little better for them.

At the end of the day, however, if you are a defendant, I encourage you to learn from your experience.  A good lawyer may get you a second chance, but eventually, even the best attorney can’t save you from yourself.

I ran across a very sad story in Newsweek, written by a flight nurse who works on hospital emergency response helicopters.  She relates the story of getting a call to an accident scene and discovering that her 17 year old son lay dying.  He had not been wearing a seat belt and was ejected from his vehicle.  Three of the four people in the car that day were not wearing seat belts – two of the three died and the other was seriously injured.  A front seat passenger was buckled in and walked away from the accident.

DUI arrests and other traffic stops – including seat belt stops – should be seen as a wake up call.  You might be lucky this time, but you cannot keep tempting fate.

Yes, lawyers will always be there to try to pick up the pieces.  But don’t rely on this.  Be safe, drive safely and take that extra second to think ahead about the consequences of poor decisions.

Filed Under: Arrest issues, DUI laws Tagged With: , ,

Breath Test Devices that Shut off the Ignition if the Driver’s Breath Shows Alcohol Above the Legal Limits

January 11, 2008 by Leave a Comment

Hawaii is considering a law whereby drivers convicted of DUI will have to pay for the installation and monitoring of breath test devices in their vehicles.  The devices work by shutting off the ignition if the driver’s breath generates an alcohol reading over the legal limit.

These devices cost $150 to install and $75 per month to monitor.

I have no issue with any tactic that can take drunk drivers off the road, although I can certainly envision scenarios whereby a driver will be inconvenienced if the device malfunctions.   My question – will accident victims and/or drunk drivers themselves – have any recourse against the breath test manufacturer if the device fails to stop an intoxicated driver from starting his car?

Hawaii leads the nation in the percentage of traffic deaths involving drunk driving (52% of total highway deaths).

Filed Under: Trial issues Tagged With: , ,