Sykes v. United States

Sykes v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 12, 2011
Decided June 9, 2011
Full case name Sykes v. United States
Docket nos. 09-11311
Prior history Sentence enhancement affirmed, 598 F.3d 334 (7th Cir. 2010); certiorari granted, 561 U. S. ___ (2010)
Argument Oral argument
Holding
Felony vehicle flight, as proscribed by Indiana law, is a violent felony for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John G. Roberts
Case opinions
Majority Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor
Concurrence Thomas
Dissent Scalia
Dissent Kagan, joined by Ginsburg

Sykes v. United States, No. 09-11311 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that felony vehicle flight, as proscribed by Indiana law, is a violent felony for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).[1] Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy wrote that vehicle flight requires officers to give chase, resulting in more injuries on average than burglary.[2] Dissenting, Justice Scalia criticized the majority for producing an ad hoc judgement based on vague legislation.[3]

See also

References

  1. ^ Skyes v. United States Syllabus p. 1 "Held: Felony vehicle flight, as proscribed by Indiana law, is a violent felony for purposes of ACCA."
  2. ^ Liptak, Adam Justices Say Fleeing Police by Car Is a Violent Felony New York Times "As a matter of both common experience and statistics, Justice Kennedy wrote, the answer was yes. Fleeing from the police in a car, he wrote, 'is a provocative and dangerous act that dares, and in a typical case requires, the officer to give chase.' As a statistical matter, he wrote, four police officers or bystanders are injured for every 100 pursuits. By contrast, he said, there are 3.2 injuries for every 100 burglaries."
  3. ^ Liptak, Adam Justices Say Fleeing Police by Car Is a Violent Felony New York Times "Justice Antonin Scalia, writing only for himself, issued a vigorous dissent. He said the provision of the federal law under review ('involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another') was a hopelessly vague Congressional 'drafting failure' and that 'today’s tutti-frutti opinion' produces 'a fourth ad hoc judgment that will sow further confusion.'"

External links