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.

    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.

    SCOTUS: No separate hearing required when police seize cars loaned to drivers accused of drug crimes

    SCOTUS: No separate hearing required when police seize cars loaned to drivers accused of drug crimes

    SCOTUS: When police seize cars loaned to drivers accused of drug crimes it does not necessitate a separate preliminary hearing.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against two women who loaned their cars to others arrested for drug crimes while using the vehicles, leading Alabama police to seek civil forfeiture of the cars.

    Their vehicles were confiscated under an Alabama statute that empowers law enforcement to seize cars utilized in the commission or facilitation of drug-related offenses.

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

    In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment mandates a timely forfeiture hearing in cases involving the seizure of personal property—however, it does not necessitate a separate preliminary hearing.

    CULLEY ET AL. v. MARSHALL, ATTORNEY GENERAL
    OF ALABAMA, ET AL.
    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
    THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    No. 22–585. Argued October 30, 2023—Decided May 9, 2024

    Petitioner Halima Culley loaned her car to her son, who was later pulled over by Alabama police officers and arrested for possession of
    marijuana. Petitioner Lena Sutton loaned her car to a friend, who was
    stopped by Alabama police and arrested for trafficking methamphetamine.

    In both cases, petitioners’ cars were seized under an Alabama civil forfeiture law that permitted seizure of a car “incident to an arrest” so long as the State then “promptly” initiated a forfeiture case. Ala. Code §20–2–93(b)(1), (c).

    The State of Alabama filed forfeiture complaints against Culley’s and Sutton’s cars just 10 and 13 days, respectively, after their seizure. While their forfeiture proceedings were pending, Culley and Sutton each filed purported class-action complaints in federal court seeking money damages under 42 U. S. C. §1983, claiming that state officials violated their due process rights by retaining their cars during the forfeiture process without holding preliminary hearings.

    In a consolidated appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of petitioners’ claims, holding that a timely forfeiture hearing affords claimants due process and that no separate preliminary hearing is constitutionally required.

    Read the rest of the SCOTUS Opinion here

     

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