Legal Commentary

DUI Not a Violent Felony For ACCA Sentencing

By TChris

Less noteworthy but more heartening than today's Supreme Court decision affirming Kentucky's lethal injection protocol is today's 6-3 decision sensibly deciding that drunk driving is not a violent felony, akin to burglary, arson, or extortion, for the purpose of triggering a mandatory 15 year sentence for offenders who have three violent felonies on their record before being sentenced for unlawful possession of a firearm. The lower courts decided that Larry Begay should be sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act even though his only prior felony offenses were DUI crimes that caused no injury, given the potential for injury that often accompanies that crime. The Supreme Court limited the statute's scope to felonies that are purposefully violent or aggressive. (more ...)

The decision is sound for all the reasons stated in Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion. In addition, while it is popular to believe (as did the lower courts) that DUI inherently "involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another" and thus meets the ACCA's definition of "violent felony," the seriousness of that risk is debatable when DUI can be established not by unsafe driving but by a blood alcohol level that may have no bearing on whether a driver poses a serious risk to others. Most alcohol-related fatalities are caused by repeat offenders with blood alcohol levels of .15 or higher, but in some states repeat offenders are guilty of DUI with a blood alcohol level as low as .02 (a testament to the lobbying power of the MADD moms). There's scant support at best for the proposition that a driver who has reached .02 poses a serious danger to anyone.

Full post as published by TalkLeft on April 16, 2008 (boomark / email).