U.S. v. Imngren

• Decision Date: 25 October 1996
• Docket Number: 96-4084,Nos. 96-4083,s. 96-4083
• Citation: 98 F.3d 811
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Prasit IMNGREN, Defendant-Appellee. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 811

98 F.3d 811

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Prasit IMNGREN, Defendant-Appellee.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 96-4083, 96-4084.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Sept. 26, 1996.

Decided Oct. 25, 1996.

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge WILLIAMS wrote the opinion, in which Judge WILKINS and Judge MOTZ joined.

ARGUED: Thomas Ernest Booth, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Appellant. D. Curtis Danielson, Alexandria, VA, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Nash W. Schott, Assistant United States Attorney, Cpt. Scott A. Lawson, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Appellant.

OPINION

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge:

Prasit Imngren and Kenneth Johnson were arrested in separate incidents for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) on Fort Belvoir, a federal military installation located in Virginia. Pursuant to military regulations, the Fort Belvoir Garrison Commander suspended their driving privileges for one year. Thereafter, the United States charged Imngren and Johnson with DUI in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 13 (West Supp.1996) and Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-266(ii) (Michie 1996). The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the DUI charges of each defendant, holding that the suspension of their driving privileges for the same offense in a prior proceeding constituted prior punishment under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Finding that the district court erred, we reverse.

I.

The official policy of the Department of the Army is to suspend or revoke for one year the driving privileges of a motorist who has been arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol on a military installation. See Motor Vehicle Traffic Supervision, 32 C.F.R § 634.10(a)(3), (b)(3) (1996). This policy is implemented by Army Regulation 190-5 (1988).

On January 10, 1995, a military policeman stopped Johnson within the boundaries of Fort Belvoir for driving 63 miles per hour in a posted 35-mile-per-hour zone. Johnson, a civilian, was given a breath alcohol content (BAC) test that showed a BAC of 0.07% by volume. Five days later the Fort Belvoir Garrison Commander, acting pursuant to Army Regulation 190-5, suspended Johnson's driving privileges on Fort Belvoir. ¹

On March 23, 1995, a military policeman stopped Imngren for a traffic violation on Fort Belvoir. Suspecting that Imngren was intoxicated, the military policeman asked him to take a BAC test. Imngren refused. As a result, Imngren's driving privileges were suspended for one year on all federal lands comprising the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States." ²

Subsequently, the United States charged each defendant with DUI in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 13 (West Supp.1996) and Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-266(ii) (Michie 1996). In addition, the United States charged Johnson with reckless driving in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 13 and Va.Code Ann. § 46.2-862(i) (Michie 1996), and driving on a suspended license in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 13 and Va.Code Ann. § 46.2-301 (Michie 1996). Imngren was additionally charged with refusing to take a BAC test in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3118(b) (West Supp.1996), and failing to drive in a single lane in violation of 32 C.F.R. § 634.25(f) (1996) and Va.Code Ann. § 46.2-804 (Michie 1996).

A federal magistrate judge dismissed the criminal charges against each defendant on the ground that the previous suspension of their driving privileges constituted a prior punishment under the Double Jeopardy Clause. In a consolidated appeal, the district court affirmed the magistrate judge's dismissal. See United States v. Imngren, 914 F.Supp. 1326 (E.D.Va.1995). This appeal followed.

II.

At issue in this case is whether the Double Jeopardy Clause is violated when a motorist is criminally charged with DUI after having had his driving privileges suspended for the same offense in a prior proceeding. We review de novo the legal questions raised by this appeal. See Thomas v. Comm'r of the IRS, 62 F.3d 97, 99 (4th Cir.1995) (stating that appellate courts should undertake de novo review when determining whether the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause has been violated).

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." U.S. Const. amend. V. Among other things, the Clause protects individuals against suffering multiple punishments for the same offense. See United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 2855-56, 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993) (citing North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2076-77, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969)).

Although it was once thought that a sanction imposed in a "civil" proceeding could never constitute "punishment" for double jeopardy purposes, that is no longer the case. See United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 447, 109 S.Ct. 1892, 1901, 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989) (noting that "[i]t is commonly understood that civil proceedings may advance punitive as well as remedial goals"). Rather, double jeopardy analysis should properly focus on whether the sanction is punitive or remedial in nature. See id.; Thomas, 62 F.3d at 100. As a result, resolution of this case turns on whether a one-year suspension of driving privileges, even though imposed in a civil proceeding, is properly characterized as punitive or remedial in nature.

The district court primarily relied on Halper, 490 U.S. at 435, 109 S.Ct. at 1894-95, Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993), and Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767, 114 S.Ct. 1937, 128 L.Ed.2d 767 (1994), in holding that the suspension of driving privileges for one year is punitive in nature. See Imngren, 914 F.Supp. at 1328-30. On appeal, Imngren and Johnson base their arguments on these same three cases. (Appellee's Br. at 9, 18-22.) However, after the district court rendered its decision and the parties filed their briefs with this court, the Supreme Court in United States v. Ursery, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996), stated that a number of lower courts had "misread Halper, Austin, and Kurth Ranch," in deciding double jeopardy cases. ³ Id. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 2144. Without the benefit of the Court's analysis in Ursery, the district court, as well as Imngren and Johnson, similarly misread the narrow holdings of those three cases.

In Halper, the defendant was convicted on sixty-five counts of violating the criminal false claims statute. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 287 (West Supp.1996). Halper received a two-year prison term and a $5,000 fine. Despite Halper's criminal punishments, the Government filed a separate civil action under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C.A. §§ 3729-3731 (West Supp.1996), to recover a $2,000 penalty for each of the sixty-five counts of fraud. The Supreme Court found this $130,000 civil penalty, which was "overwhelmingly disproportionate" to the government's actual damages of $585, to be punitive. Because the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits the imposition of multiple punishments, the Court held that the Government's civil action was barred. See Halper 490 U.S. at 449, 109 S.Ct. at 1902.

Ursery makes clear that Halper "was limited to the context of civil penalties." Ursery, --- U.S. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 2144. "Civil penalties," the Court noted, "are designed as a rough form of 'liquidated damages' for the harms suffered by the Government as a result of a defendant's conduct." Id. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 2145. Unlike the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, this Circuit in United States v. Cullen, 979 F.2d 992 (4th Cir.1992), correctly recognized that Halper was limited to civil penalty cases. In Cullen, we noted that:

Halper involved a civil penalty intended to substitute for damages suffered by the government for the fraudulent acts committed upon it. The remedial purpose of that penalty was one of compensation, and the amount sought by the government overwhelmed any realistic estimate of the government's pecuniary loss. Here, by contrast, the government seeks the forfeiture of the Cullens' building not to compensate itself for any costs of investigation or prosecution, but to remove what had become a harmful instrumentality in the hands of the Cullens.

Id. at 995.

Like the sanctions in Cullen and Ursery, the sanction at issue in this case was not designed to compensate the government for its costs of investigation or prosecution. Here, as in Cullen, the purpose of the sanction was "to remove what had become a harmful instrumentality in the hands of [Imngren and Johnson]." Cullen, 979 F.2d at 995. Therefore, the Halper analysis upon which the district court relied is not applicable in this case. The Supreme Court expressly acknowledged that such analysis would be the rule only "for the rare case, ... where a fixed-penalty provision subjects a prolific but small-gauge offender to a sanction overwhelmingly disproportionate to the damages he has caused." Halper, 490 U.S. at 449-50, 109 S.Ct. at 1902.

The district court also relied on the Court's analysis in Austin and Kurth Ranch in holding that the suspension of a motorist's driving privileges for one year is punitive. In particular, the district court concluded that a sanction is punitive if it is not "solely remedial." Imngren, 914 F.Supp. at 1328 (citing Austin, 509 U.S. at 610, 113 S.Ct. at 2805-06; Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. at ----, 114 S.Ct. at 1945). However, the "solely remedial" analysis is also inapplicable in this case. In Ursery, the Supreme Court recognized that a remedial sanction may have "certain punitive aspects." --- U.S. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 2148. As the Court further noted:

[I]t...