United States v. Davis
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
261 F. Supp. 2d 343 (2003)
- Written by Patrick Speice, JD
Facts
A police officer observed Clifton Davis (defendant) repeatedly swerve off the road and strike several barrels during one swerve onto the shoulder. The officer pursued Davis, who sped up and began aggressively weaving through traffic in excess of the speed limit, nearly striking several other vehicles. A second police officer joined the pursuit and positioned his car in front of Davis’s car, ultimately forcing Davis to slow down and stop. When the officers approached Davis’s car, Davis was unresponsive, disoriented, and confused. Davis had glassy eyes and had to be physically carried out of the car for transport to a police station. At the station, Davis could not respond to simple requests for information for more than three hours before Davis could finally communicate normally. Davis was given a blood test that found an uncertain amount of marijuana but no alcohol or other drugs. Davis admitted using marijuana on prior occasions but denied using marijuana that day. No drugs or related paraphernalia were found in Davis’s car. Davis was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI). At trial, the government did not offer any evidence that the amount of marijuana in Davis’s blood affected Davis. After a bench trial, the district court considered whether the evidence was sufficient to convict Davis of DUI.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Day, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.