U.S. v. Imngren

2 Citing cases

  1. Bolton v. Dep't of the Navy Bd. for Corr. of Naval Records

    914 F.3d 401 (6th Cir. 2019)   Cited 7 times

    Instead, administrative suspensions are intended to promote public safety by removing drivers who drive under the influence. United States v. Imngren , 98 F.3d 811, 816 (4th Cir. 1996). In fact, the Fourth Circuit held that prosecution for driving under the influence on a military reservation following suspension of driving privileges did not violate double jeopardy.

  2. Alan A. v. Verniero

    970 F. Supp. 1153 (D.N.J. 1997)   Cited 6 times
    Stating that Megan's Law was enacted to provide knowledge as measure of self-defense to help protect most vulnerable community members from sex offenders

    The Tier Determination Hearing is not unlike any separate hearing afforded prior to imposition of a remedial restraint, sanction or burden based in whole or in part on facts that have resulted in or may lead to conviction. See Allen v. Attorney General of State of Maine, 80 F.3d 569 (1st Cir. 1996) (prosecution for driving while intoxicated not barred by prior administrative suspension of license for same conduct); United States v. Imngren, 98 F.3d 811 (4th Cir. 1996) (same); United States v. Glymph, 96 F.3d 722 (4th Cir. 1996) (applying Ursery and concluding that because four year debarment served remedial purpose it did not bar a criminal prosecution); Borjesson, 92 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 1996) (indefinite exclusion from program served remedial purpose and did not bar imposition of a sentence). In any event, the Tier Determination Hearings are not a successive prosecution for the same offense pursuant to the Blockburger test.