United States v. James M. Rowe

599 F.2d 1319, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 13811
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 20, 1979
Docket78-5183
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 599 F.2d 1319 (United States v. James M. Rowe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. James M. Rowe, 599 F.2d 1319, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 13811 (4th Cir. 1979).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

James M. Rowe appeals his conviction under the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, for driving while under the influence of alcohol and refusing to take a breathalyzer test in violation of Sections 18.2-266 and 18.2-268 respectively of the Code of Virginia. The offenses occurred on the Norfolk Naval Station, a federal enclave.

Upon consideration of the briefs, the record, and the arguments of the parties, we detect no reversible error in the conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol.

We believe, however, that federal prosecution of the breathalyzer charge was improper. The Assimilative Crimes Act by its own terms incorporates into federal law only the criminal law of the jurisdiction within which the federal enclave exists. United States v. Best, 573 F.2d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 1978). The Supreme Court of Virginia has held that a proceeding under Virginia Code § 18.2-268 to suspend a driver’s license because of his refusal to submit to a blood test is administrative and civil, not criminal, in nature. Deaner v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 285, 287-93, 170 S.E.2d 199 (1969). We, of course, must accept this authoritative interpretation of Virginia law. Accordingly, this offense may not be prosecuted under the Assimilative Crimes Act. Cf. United States v. Best, 573 F.2d at 1098-1100.

We therefore affirm the conviction of driving while under the influence of alcohol and reverse the conviction on the breathalyzer charge.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Leekley
377 F. Supp. 3d 1318 (N.D. Florida, 2019)
Corley v. Long-Lewis, Inc.
688 F. Supp. 2d 1315 (N.D. Alabama, 2010)
United States v. Williams
629 F. Supp. 2d 539 (E.D. Virginia, 2009)
United States v. Brooks
64 M.J. 587 (Army Court of Criminal Appeals, 2006)
United States v. Bradford
205 F.3d 840 (Fifth Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Stewart
Fifth Circuit, 2000
United States v. McCandless
Fifth Circuit, 2000
United States v. Crawford
Fifth Circuit, 2000
United States v. Clark
4 F. Supp. 2d 940 (C.D. California, 1998)
United States v. Adams
140 F.3d 895 (Tenth Circuit, 1998)
United States v. Bradley J. Devenport
131 F.3d 604 (Seventh Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Sauls
981 F. Supp. 909 (D. Maryland, 1997)
United States v. Smith
965 F. Supp. 756 (E.D. Virginia, 1997)
State, Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety v. Lovett
874 P.2d 1247 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1994)
United States v. Golden
825 F. Supp. 667 (D. New Jersey, 1993)
United States v. Love
141 F.R.D. 315 (D. Colorado, 1992)
United States v. Eric J. Carlson
900 F.2d 1346 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)
United States v. Knott
722 F. Supp. 1365 (E.D. Virginia, 1989)
United States v. Carlson
714 F. Supp. 428 (D. Hawaii, 1989)
United States v. Manning
700 F. Supp. 1001 (W.D. Wisconsin, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
599 F.2d 1319, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 13811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-james-m-rowe-ca4-1979.