Carjacking is a Federal Offense

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

Carjacking, the act of forcibly stealing an occupied vehicle, has long been a concern for public safety. It was a local and state issue until a series of violent incidents in the early 1990s that carjacking became a federal offense. 

Background of the Law

The term “carjacking” entered the American lexicon in the late 20th century, but the act itself is as old as automobiles. It wasn’t until the Federal Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992 (FACTA) that carjacking was recognized as a distinct federal crime. The law was enacted in response to a spate of violent carjackings, some of which resulted in the deaths of victims. Congress aimed to address this violent crime that often crossed state lines, making it a matter of federal concern.

APPEALS in STATE or FEDERAL COURT
When you need to appeal a decision you feel is wrong.
Call Komorn Law
 (248) 357-2550

Current Law

The current federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2119, defines carjacking as the taking of a motor vehicle from another person “by force and violence or by intimidation” with the vehicle having been transported in interstate or foreign commerce. 

The law has been amended since its inception to include provisions for cases where serious bodily injury or death results from the carjacking, with penalties ranging from fines to life imprisonment, or even the death penalty in the most severe cases.

The carjacking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2119, which originally became effective on October 25, 1992, provided in relevant part:

Whoever, possessing a firearm … takes a motor vehicle that has been transported, shipped, or received in interstate or foreign commerce from the person or presence of another by force and violence or by intimidation, or attempts to do so, shall þ (1) be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years or both; (2) if serious bodily injury results, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both; and (3) if death results, be fined under this title or imprisoned for any number of years up to life, or both.

    On September 13, 1994, § 2119 was amended to read as follows:

    Whoever, with intent to cause death or serious bodily harm takes a motor vehicle that has been transported, shipped, or received in interstate or foreign commerce from the person or presence of another by force and violence or by intimidation, or attempts to do so, shall (1) be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years or both, (2) if serious bodily injury results, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both, and (3) if death results, be fined under this title or imprisoned for any number of years up to life, or both or sentenced to death (emphasis added to highlight the 1994 changes to the statute).

     

    Prosecutorial Trends

    Despite the stringent laws, there has been a noticeable decline in the number of carjacking cases prosecuted at the federal level in recent years. Several factors contribute to this trend. One significant hurdle is the requirement for prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to cause serious bodily harm or death. This intent requirement sets a high bar for federal charges and is not a prerequisite at the state level, where most carjacking cases are prosecuted.

    Conclusion

    In summary, while carjacking remains a serious offense under federal law, the challenges of proving intent and the intricacies of prosecutorial decision-making have led to fewer federal charges in recent years. The focus has shifted towards state-level prosecutions, where the legal requirements may be less stringent, and the practicalities of bringing a case to trial are more manageable. The evolution of carjacking laws reflects a balance between the need for harsh penalties for violent crimes and the realities of legal practice.

    In the FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM
    When you need to go on the offense – to put the prosecution on defense
    Komorn Law (248) 357-2550.

    THC Associated with Increase of Survival Time in Palliative Cancer

    THC Associated with Increase of Survival Time in Palliative Cancer

    Summary from the official government website (Link Below)

    The Use of Tetrahydrocannabinol Is Associated with an Increase in Survival Time in Palliative Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study

    The study, conducted by researchers in Germany, analyzed data from the palliative treatment documentation of over 9,000 patients from five ambulatory palliative care teams. The researchers divided the patients into three groups: those who did not receive THC, those who received a low dose of THC (less than or equal to 4.7mg per day), and those who received a higher dose of THC (greater than or equal to 4.7mg per day). They then compared survival rates between the groups.

    The analysis revealed that THC use was associated with a statistically significant increase in survival time, but only for patients who received a daily dose exceeding the median amount of 4.7mg. In this group, patients lived an average of 15 days longer compared to those who did not receive THC.

    APPEALS in STATE or FEDERAL COURT
    When you need to appeal a decision you feel is wrong.
    Call Komorn Law
     (248) 357-2550

    Key takeaway: This study suggests that THC may offer a survival benefit for ambulatory palliative care patients, but only at higher doses. More research is needed to confirm these findings and to explore the underlying mechanisms.

    Additional considerations:

    • The study was observational and cannot definitively prove that THC caused the observed increase in survival time. Other factors may have played a role.
    • The optimal dosage of THC for palliative care patients is still being investigated.
    • THC use can have side effects, and it is important to weigh the potential risks and benefits when considering it as a treatment option.

    Further readings:

    Source: NIH

    In the FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM
    When you need to go on the offense – to put the prosecution on defense
    Komorn Law (248) 357-2550.

    Can I be arrested for DUI riding my bike high in Michigan?

    Can I be arrested for DUI riding my bike high in Michigan?

    Recreational Cannabis is “legal” in Michigan.

    Can I be arrested for riding my bike high in Michigan?

    First… What is the definition of a bicycle?

    MCL 257.4 defines a “bicycle” as:

    “…a device propelled by human power upon which a person may ride, having either 2 or 3 wheels in a tandem or tricycle arrangement, all of which are over 14 inches in diameter.”

    Does a bicyclist have to obey the same traffic laws as a motorist?

    Yes, with exceptions.  MCL 257.657 states:

    “Each person riding a bicycle…upon a roadway has all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to the provisions of this chapter which by their nature do not have application.”

    Can you be charged with a DUI or biking high while riding your bicycle?

    No. Although it is dangerous to ride while intoxicated, a bicycle is not a motor vehicle according to state law. DUI applies only to motor vehicle operators.

    Other laws will be weaponized against you however, such as disorderly conduct.

    DUI Charges?
    Sometimes it’s cheaper in the long run to fight them
    Call to Fight for your Rights (248) 357-2550

    By the way…

    Is it legal to use a cell phone or text while riding a bicycle?

    Only if the cell phone is in hands-free mode. MCL 257.661 states:

    “A person operating a bicycle…shall not carry any package, bundle, or article that prevents the driver from keeping both hands upon the handlebars of the vehicle.”

    The Michigan Point System

    Each traffic violation has a point value, which is set by law in the Michigan Vehicle Code.

    Read about it here

    Traffic FAQs – Traffic Crashes & Reports

    Traffic FAQs – Traffic Crashes & Reports

    Traffic FAQs – Traffic Crashes & Reports

    • Know the laws if you get pulled over.
    • Know who to call if you need legal defense if a violation turns into a DUI or worse. That would be us.

    Traffic Crashes & Reports

    Beginning in July 2005, the State of Michigan launched a new website dedicated to online purchasing of traffic crash reports.

    Interested parties may be able to purchase a copy of a traffic crash report taken by any Michigan law enforcement agency.

    Traffic Crash Purchasing System

    Question: I was involved in a traffic crash in the past and need a copy of the report. Where can I obtain one?

    Answer: Interested parties such as individuals involved in the crash and/or their attorney, and insurance companies should contact the Traffic Crash Purchasing System(TCPS) via the internet at the aforementioned link. If unable to do so you can contact the Michigan State Police Post that responded to the crash. A listing of state police posts is follows.

    State Police Posts

    Each post retains traffic crash reports for the current year plus two years. If the crash occurred prior to that you must request a copy of the report from the Criminal Justice Information Center using a Freedom of Information Request form.

    In addition, if you are not an interested party as described above, you must complete a Freedom of Information Request to obtain a specific traffic crash report.

    Complete the form with as much information as possible and mail to the address listed on the form.

    FOI Request

    If another agency other than the Michigan State Police responded and completed a crash report, you will need to contact that agency directly or utilize the TCP.

    DUI Charges?
    Sometimes it’s cheaper in the long run to fight them
    Call to Fight for your Rights (248) 357-2550

    The Michigan Point System

    Each traffic violation has a point value, which is set by law in the Michigan Vehicle Code.

    Read about it here

    Question:  What is a State of Michigan Traffic Crash Report (UD-10)?

    Answer: The State of Michigan Traffic Crash Report (UD-10) is a form that must be completed by law (MCL 257.622) on all reportable crashes. The report is completed by all law enforcement agencies and is forwarded to the Michigan State Police for analysis for the purpose of furnishing statistical information and preparing compiled crash data.

    Here’s the law

    257.622 Report of accidents resulting in death, personal injury, or property damage; forms; analysis; use; retention.

    Sec. 622.

         The driver of a motor vehicle involved in an accident that injures or kills any person, or that damages property to an apparent extent totaling $1,000.00 or more, shall immediately report that accident at the nearest or most convenient police station, or to the nearest or most convenient police officer.
    The officer receiving the report, or his or her commanding officer, shall immediately forward each report to the director of the department of state police on forms prescribed by the director of the department of state police.
    The forms shall be completed in full by the investigating officer. The director of the department of state police shall analyze each report relative to the cause of the reported accident and shall prepare information compiled from reports filed under this section for public use.
    A copy of the report under this section and copies of reports required under section 621 shall be retained for at least 3 years at the local police department, sheriff’s department, or local state police post making the report.

    Disclaimer: This Frequently Asked Questions page is provided solely as a means of providing basic answers to questions about the Michigan Vehicle Code and is not designed or intended to provide a basis to contest a citation for a violation of the code. The positions stated are only those of the Michigan Department of State Police and are not binding on any other law enforcement agency or any Court. If our position is supported by case law then it will be enumerated within the answer provided. Source of Information – Traffic Laws FAQ

    Bloomfield Hills Doctor Convicted of $6M Medicare Fraud Scheme

    Bloomfield Hills Doctor Convicted of $6M Medicare Fraud Scheme

    JUSTICE.GOV

    For Immediate Release

    A federal jury convicted a Michigan doctor today for causing the submission of over $6.3 million in fraudulent claims to Medicare for medically unnecessary orthotic braces ordered through a telemarketing scheme.

    According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, Sophie Toya, M.D., 55, of Bloomfield Hills, signed thousands of prescriptions for orthotic braces for over 2,500 Medicare patients during a six-month period. Toya was not the treating physician for any of these patients and, instead, was connected with some of the patients over the telephone through a telemarketing scheme and spoke to the patients briefly before signing orthotic brace prescriptions for them. For other patients, Toya signed prescriptions without having any contact with them.

    In one instance, Toya prescribed a lower back brace, right and left shoulder braces, a right wrist brace, right and left knee braces, and right and left ankle braces for a single Medicare patient. Toya also prescribed multiple braces for undercover agents posing as five different Medicare patients after speaking to each agent for less than a minute over the telephone.

    APPEALS in STATE or FEDERAL COURT
    When you need to appeal a decision you feel is wrong.
    Call Komorn Law
     (248) 357-2550

    The evidence presented at trial showed that Toya could not possibly have diagnosed the patients or determined that the braces were medically necessary for them. Nonetheless, Toya signed medical records and prescriptions for braces that falsely represented that the braces were medically necessary and that she diagnosed the beneficiaries, had a plan of care for them, and recommended that they receive certain additional treatment.

    Toya’s false prescriptions were used by brace supply companies to bill Medicare more than $6.3 million.

    Toya was paid approximately $120,000 in exchange for signing the fraudulent prescriptions.

    The jury convicted Toya of one count of health care fraud and five counts of false statements relating to health care matters. She is scheduled to be sentenced on Aug. 15 and faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison for health care fraud and five years in prison on each of the false statements relating to health care matters counts.

    A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

    Only 120k out of 6.3 million!! Looks like the scammer got scammed. But who really got scammed – You did…Once again. —> Punishment will probably be a good job in politics raising campaign funds.

    In the FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM
    When you need to go on the offense – to put the prosecution on defense
    Komorn Law (248) 357-2550.

    Berkley state representative introduces bill to police noise from cars

    Berkley state representative introduces bill to police noise from cars

    A Michigan bill aims to crack down on excessive noise from vehicles with intentional modifications.

    The Problem:

      • Loud vehicles are a nuisance for residents, especially along Woodward Avenue, a popular cruising destination.
      • The current law is unclear and difficult to enforce. It prohibits modifying vehicles to create excessive noise but also mentions decibel level limits, impractical for on-the-spot enforcement.

    The Bill:

      • House Bill 5696, introduced by Rep. Natalie Price, targets vehicles intentionally modified to be loud.
      • It clarifies the law, making it clear that such modifications are illegal.
      • Penalties would increase:

          • First offense: $100 to $500
          • Subsequent offenses: $1,000

    The Concerns:

      • Car enthusiasts are concerned about:

          • Law enforcement potentially targeting factory-made loud vehicles.
          • The need for officer education to differentiate between illegal modifications and stock loud engines.

    The Bigger Picture:

      • While the bill focuses on Woodward Avenue, the issue is statewide.
      • Rep. Price hopes the bill will improve the situation for residents and acknowledges the positive aspects of car shows like the Dream Cruise.
      • The goal is to encourage responsible car ownership and respect for communities.

    Or better yet start tonight and use the law that’s already there. Like this one…

    Sec. 74-1. – Prohibition generally.

    (a)  It shall be unlawful for any person to make, continue or cause to be made or continued any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise or any noise which either annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of others, within the limits of the city.

    (b) Each of the acts enumerated in this chapter is declared unlawful and prohibited, and violators shall be responsible for a municipal civil infraction, but this enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive.(Code 1981, § 17-1; Ord. No. O-13-19, § 5, 10-21-2019)

    Link to Code

    YOU TOO ROYAL OAK

    Disorderly Conduct (Disturbing the Peace and Noise)
    Ordinance at Section §278-35, First Reading

    B. Makes unreasonable noise which tends to cause a public danger, alarm, disorder or nuisance;

    P. Vehicle sound equipment noise and vibration. It shall be unlawful for any person to be in possession or control of a parked or moving vehicle with a stereo, disc player, cassette player, speakers, or other similar equipment that is producing sound on a street, driveway, publicly patrolled parking lot or public place at or with a level, volume, intensity, frequency, or other attribute that is perceptible at a distance of 50 feet or more, either by hearing the sound by the human ear or by feeling the sound in the form of vibrations associated therewith. This subsection shall not be applicable to sound emanating from emergency vehicles, vending vehicles, or publicly sponsored or permitted concerts, sporting events, activities, or gatherings. A violation of this subsection is a civil infraction punishable by a fine of $100.
    [Added 7-25-2016 by Ord. No. 2016-09]

    Q. Loud vehicles. The operation of any automobile, truck, motorcycle or other vehicle so out of repair or so loaded or constructed as to cause loud and unnecessary grating, grinding, rattling or other unreasonable noise, including the noise resulting from exhaust, which is plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet from the vehicle and unreasonably disturbing to the quiet, comfort or repose of other persons. A violation of this subsection is a civil infraction punishable by a fine of $100.
    [Added 7-25-2016 by Ord. No. 2016-09]