TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. James M. Rowe

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James M. ROWE, Appellant

United States v. Rowe, 599 F.2d 1319 (4th Cir. 1979)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 20, 1979
Docket
No. 78-5183
Judges
Butzner, Russell, Hall
Citations
599 F.2d 13191979 U.S. App. LEXIS 13811

Opinion — Per Curiam

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.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 27 cases

View all citing references →
1980: 11982: 11985: 11986: 11988: 31989: 21990: 11992: 11993: 11994: 11997: 31998: 22000: 52006: 12009: 12010: 12019: 119802026peak 2000 · 5

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Golden825 F. Supp. 667 (D.N.J. 1993)
  2. United States v. Bradley J. Devenport131 F.3d 604 (7th Cir. 1997)
  3. United States v. Smith965 F. Supp. 756 (E.D. Va. 1997)
  4. United States v. Hollinshead616 F. Supp. 160 (D. Haw. 1985)
  5. United States v. Eric J. Carlson900 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir. 1990)
  6. State, Department of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety v. Lovett874 P.2d 1247 (Nev. 1994)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Leekley377 F. Supp. 3d 1318 (N.D. Fla. 2019)
  2. Corley v. Long-Lewis, Inc.688 F. Supp. 2d 1315 (N.D. Ala. 2010)
  3. United States v. Williams629 F. Supp. 2d 539 (E.D. Va. 2009)
  4. United States v. Brooks64 M.J. 587 (A.C.C.A. 2006)
  5. United States v. StewartNo. 98-60769 (5th Cir. Mar. 3, 2000)
  6. United States v. McCandlessNo. 98-60787 (5th Cir. Mar. 3, 2000)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Best, 573 F.2d 1095 (9th Cir. 1978) 88
Deaner v. Commonwealth, 170 S.E.2d 199 (Va. 1969) 57

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list