Using a car in a crime apparently makes you subject to federal prosecution...really?

Great Debates
1

First I want to be clear I am glad these people are (almost certainly seems like) going to prison for a very long time. I also have no problem with the hate crime statute itself.

What I am puzzled and vaguely alarmed about is that it seems now the federal government can charge almost anyone with a crime. A car and using a federal road is all it takes? If someone got stopped for smoking a joint while driving on a federal road are they guilty of a federal crime?

IIRC (legal eagles correct me if I am wrong) this opens the door to double jeopardy. Ok…I know double jeopardy is not permitted but a person could now get busted under state law and busted again under federal law almost absurdly easily. Two different laws so no actual double jeopardy (even though it was one crime).

Am I missing something here? Is this normal and how it has always been? Is this much ado about nothing or is it something to be concerned about (even if you aren’t a criminal)?

2

Anyone in the federal government who makes an argument based on the interstate commerce clause is 99% likely to be full of shit.

The only problem is that they don’t get called on it.

3

I know the interstate commerce clause has been used…liberally…for the feds to justify all sorts of things and more than a few states and people complain about it.

Each instance would need to be looked at to decide how much (if any) overreach there is but this…just wow! Your car makes it an interstate commerce issue? I mean, you are probably wearing clothes when you commit a crime too. Thus an interstate commerce issue unless your clothes were manufactured in state with raw materials sourced in state.

And if you transport yourself via anything the feds helped pay for? Interstate commerce.

Just seems an unbelievable reach even for them. I fear the creeps and creepettes in the OP could get out of their sentences later if a higher court finds this to be the bullshit it seems to be.

4

It’s not like the feds are forcing them to eat broccoli.

5

Did the road pass through a military base or something? Or are all roads “federal roads”? (AFAIK there’s nothing special about a US Highway other than that an NGO decided it should be routed that way. They aren’t maintained by the feds, and there isn’t even any extra money for the states like there is for Interstates, so anything that makes one a “federal road” would have to apply to pretty much all other roads, right?)

6

I was about to lead off my response with “I am not a federal criminal, but …” And then I remembered all the speeding tickets I’ve received. :eek:

I am not a criminal lawyer, but I have a vague recollection of a case called Blockburger v. US. I haven’t re-read the case, but my recollection is that the Supreme Court said that jeopardy does not attach (i.e., a 2nd trial won’t implicate double jeopardy) if the 2nd trial involves elements not included in the first trial. It seems to be most commonly used in drug trafficking charges. However, there are, apparently, several shades of grey in this concept.

I believe there’s a related concept that says that double jeopardy does not apply when you’re tried by two separate governments (i.e., a state and the federal government). A prominent example is the officers who beat Rodney King. They were acquitted in a state trial, and then the federal government brought charges against them of violating King’s civil rights, and 2 officers ended up being sentenced to 30 years in prison.

However, a quick Google search turned up this drug case, in which a man was acquitted of state drug charges and a Baltimore judge dismissed federal charges based on the same incident. I don’t know enough about the case to speak intelligently on it, though, so I can’t say why that case was different.

7

The link is the Hate crime law. The issue you raise though is, if a crime commited on federal property is not a codified crime under federal law, the feds can still charge under the Assimilative Crimes Act and charge under that states drug laws, as all federal property is within a state except DC.

Federal jurisdiction:

(B) Circumstances described.— For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that—
(i)the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim—
(I)across a State line or national border; or

(II)using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

(ii)the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);

Now, while I know certain IC elements trigger federal jurisdiction, I have never heard of a US Highway or car triggering such. As an example, no felon can posses a firearm, but IIRC it states if the gun was made through IC, such as buying a part in another state and the manufacturer sells it in another.

Murder is against federal law, but there must be a federal element present. From past research concerning Intertstate of foreign commerce issues, that could be arranging a murder by mail, an intertstate phone call, etc.

See; Certification; in the law on when the feds can prosecute such a crime.

Barring this, DJ has never bars such “seperate/dual sovereign” prosections. An example is Heath v. Alabama, from memory. The SC ruled both GA an AL could charge a defendant for the muder of the same person.

8

Oh, I forgot to add, drug offenses are probably covered under the CFR, Code of Federal Regulations. I know a lot of traffic offenses on federal land are codifed under it.