United States v. Lasayfies E. Wilson
711 F. App'x 706
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- At ~4:00 a.m. on May 26, 2014, Park Police found Lasayfies Wilson in the driver’s seat of a running Ford Fusion stopped on a Baltimore‑Washington Parkway ramp, partially blocking traffic; his son was a passenger.
- Officer Gogarty detected a strong odor of alcohol, observed apparent vomit on the doorframe, and administered an HGN field sobriety test that indicated involuntary eye jerking.
- Wilson was loud, profane, and threatened officers; Officer Keene also smelled alcohol while transporting Wilson to the station.
- A blood sample (taken by warrant at the hospital) later tested at 0.14% BAC, but the district court excluded that result from one count due to lack of calibration/authentication evidence.
- Magistrate convicted Wilson of four offenses; district court reversed the specific 0.08% BAC conviction for lack of authenticating evidence but affirmed convictions for operating under the influence and unsafe operation; this appeal concerns those two convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict under 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a)(1) (operating while under the influence) | Government: evidence (engine running, driver in control, odor of alcohol, HGN results, vomit, combative behavior, officer opinions) supports intoxication and inability to safely operate | Wilson: lacked classic indicia (no slurred speech, no bloodshot eyes, no empty containers); only parked with engine idling — insufficient to show intoxication or incapacity to drive safely | Affirmed: substantial evidence supported control, intoxication, and incapacity to operate safely given circumstances (partial highway obstruction, odors, HGN, behavior) |
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict under 36 C.F.R. § 4.22(b)(1) (operating without due care) | Government: parking partially blocking a highway ramp at 4 a.m. (poor light), on a narrow shoulder, created a danger to other drivers | Wilson: statute’s clause about considering wildlife, traffic, weather, road and light conditions requires evidence of those factors; absence of such evidence makes conviction unsupported | Affirmed: court reads clause as qualifying only the speed prong; even if not, light conditions (pre‑dawn), road character (narrow ramp shoulder), and blocking traffic supported lack of due care |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bursey, 416 F.3d 301 (4th Cir. 2005) (standard of review for district court review of magistrate bench‑trial convictions)
- United States v. Herder, 594 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2010) (definition of substantial evidence in criminal sufficiency review)
- United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849 (4th Cir. 1996) (substantial‑evidence standard and appellate review principles)
- United States v. Griffin, [citation="400 F. App'x 783"] (4th Cir.) (being in driver’s seat with engine running and statement about having been driving supports control of vehicle)