Another sign the apocalypse is upon us...

[hbelkins]

http://www.kentucky.com/2012/03/14/2109216/four-arrested-by-fbi-for-alleged.html

The alleged crime was a federal offense because the four used instruments of interstate commerce in the crime: a Chevrolet Silverado pickup and U.S. 119, a federal road.


                   

[MrDisco99]

That's actually pretty standard for a kidnapping case.  The feds get involved in kidnapping cases pretty often due to the likelihood of being transported across state lines.

Interesting that in this case, though, the victim was already free when the crime was reported.  I'm thinking this was just a matter of asserting jurisdiction right away while they work on making the case for a hate crimes charge.

[hbelkins]

You miss the point.

[agentsteel53]

so if I take multi state route 200, I'm free and clear, but if I take US 350 I'm hosed?

[hbelkins]

I would love to have a conversation with the prosecutor to discuss the fallacy of both "federal highway" and the underlying viatological interests.

[formulanone]

So if I sell contraband solely along points on Interstate 4, is it intrastate or interstate trafficking? 

[realjd]

so if I take multi state route 200, I'm free and clear, but if I take US 350 I'm hosed?

Unless you're in a Chevy Silverado, which apparently is a tool of interstate commerce according to the article.

[signalman]

Unless you're in a Chevy Silverado, which apparently is a tool of interstate commerce according to the article.

Fords aren't likely to make it across the state line without breaking down.

[huskeroadgeek]

At first when I read it, I thought the only problem was calling US 119 a "federal road"-using a category of road that doesn't exist. But I realize it goes even further than that-are they really suggesting that because it was a US highway and not a state highway that the highway was a "tool of interstate commerce"? Crossing state lines makes it involved in interstate commerce, it doesn't matter what kind of highway you are using.

[hbelkins]

Obviously my problem was with the viatological reference, but there are a few things that make me scratch my head. They never did cross state lines. Does it become a matter of "interstate commerce" because US 119 crosses a state line? What if they used KY 160, which does cross a state line even though it is not a "federal route?" What if they used KY 221, which runs parallel to 119 on the north side of Pine Mountain but does not cross a state line? Is it because 119 is an ARC corridor and was built largely with federal funds?

A good lawyer should be able to rip the "federal road" theory apart. I'm just amazed that a prosecutor would be so clueless.

None of this should be construed to mean that I don't think the crime was abhorrent. It was and it should be punished to the full extent of the law.

[J N Winkler]

I think a variation of MrDisco99's suggested explanation is probably the truth, except that in this case I think it is less about asserting federal jurisdiction per se and more about having a charge (even if it later turns out to be bogus) which can be used to hold the culprits until enough evidence can be gathered to charge them under the hate-crimes statute.

We all know, of course, that US 119 is not a "federal" highway in any sense of administrative control.  What the prosecutor could be trying to do is to hang interstate commerce involvement on the fact that there has been federal participation through grants in the construction and major maintenance of US 119.  I don't think, however, that such a theory would hold up in the courts.

I think the prosecuting attorney is actually sailing close to the wind on this one and could find himself hoisted up on disciplinary charges if a convincing case can be made that he filed charges on the basis of an interpretation of the law that he knew to be invalid.  As a prosecutor he has immunity, but he can still be found to have acted unethically and lose his license to practice law as a result.

[NE2]

Another possible interpretation: federal aid/national highway system.

[MrDisco99]

I think a variation of MrDisco99's suggested explanation is probably the truth, except that in this case I think it is less about asserting federal jurisdiction per se and more about having a charge (even if it later turns out to be bogus) which can be used to hold the culprits until enough evidence can be gathered to charge them under the hate-crimes statute.

That's actually pretty much what I meant.

And I agree, that's a web-thin thread the prosecution is hanging on.  They need to come up with something really good really soon.