Massachusetts Federal Sex Criminal Defense Lawyer

If you have been charged with OUI which took place on a road owned by the Federal government, National Park Service land, place on federally owned property, including military bases or other government-owned lands or roads, such as the GW Parkway and the Pentagon parking lot then you will be prosecuted in a Federal court.

Under 36 CFR 4.23 Operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs

"(a) Operating or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle is prohibited while:

      (1) Under the influence of alcohol, or a drug, or drugs, or any combination thereof, to a degree that renders the operator incapable of safe operation; or

      (2) The alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath is 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Provided however, that if State law that applies to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol establishes more restrictive limits of alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath, those limits supersede the limits specified in this paragraph."

Below is a sample case of federal DUI in Massachusetts as interpreted by a lawyer in our firm.

Have you been charged with federal DUI in Massachusetts and you are wondering what the penalty is for federal DUI and need a lawyer to defend you?

Are you concerned about the consequences of being charged with federal DUI in Massachusetts and you are wondering what the penalty is for federal DUI?

For a lot of our clients, a charge of federal DUI can result in the loss of their job, their security clearance, etc.

Don’t risk going to court without a lawyer, if you have been charged with a crime of federal DUI in Massachusetts.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

Creamer v. United States

Facts:

Defendant challenged a judgment of a United States Magistrate Judge, who found her guilty of operating under the influence (OUI) in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a) (1992) and reckless driving in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.2 (1992) on federal property.

If you are facing a federal DUI case in Massachusetts, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Federal Court made the following holding:

• A threshold matter in any prosecution brought under 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a) (1992) is whether the conduct in question occurred on a federal enclave. A business record is recognized as an exception to the hearsay rule because it is made in the regular course of business and therefore possesses certain "hallmarks of authenticity. In order for evidence to be admissible as a business record under Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) it must be transmitted by a declarant with knowledge in the ordinary course of a regularly conducted business activity as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness. Fed. R. Evid. 803(6).

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.


These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

If you have been charged with OUI which took place on a road owned by the Federal government, National Park Service land, place on federally owned property, including military bases or other government-owned lands or roads, such as the GW Parkway and the Pentagon parking lot then you will be prosecuted in a Federal court.

Under 36 CFR 4.23 Operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs

"(a) Operating or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle is prohibited while:

(1) Under the influence of alcohol, or a drug, or drugs, or any combination thereof, to a degree that renders the operator incapable of safe operation; or

(2) The alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath is 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Provided however, that if State law that applies to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol establishes more restrictive limits of alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath, those limits supersede the limits specified in this paragraph."

Below is a sample case of federal DUI in Massachusetts as interpreted by a lawyer in our firm.

Have you been charged with federal DUI in Massachusetts and you are wondering what the penalty is for federal DUI and need a lawyer to defend you?

Are you concerned about the consequences of being charged with federal DUI in Massachusetts and you are wondering what the penalty is for federal DUI?

For a lot of our clients, a charge of federal DUI can result in the loss of their job, their security clearance, etc.

Don’t risk going to court without a lawyer, if you have been charged with a crime of federal DUI in Massachusetts.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

Linda v. United States

Facts:

Defendant challenged a judgment of a United States Magistrate Judge, who found her guilty of operating under the influence (OUI) in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a) (1992) and reckless driving in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.2 (1992) on federal property.

If you are facing a federal DUI case in Massachusetts, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Federal Court made the following holding:

• Because reckless driving is an offense not specifically enumerated in the Code of Federal Regulations, 36 C.F.R. § 4.2 (1992) applies to incorporate the Virginia Code provisions which prohibit the offense. Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-852 (1989 & Supp. 1992). However, the offense of driving under the influence and the procurement of blood samples for such a charge are specifically addressed in 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a) (1992). Therefore, 36 C.F.R. § 4.2 (1992) is inapposite.
• The Code of Federal Regulations provides that unless specifically addressed by regulations in this chapter, traffic and the use of vehicles within a park area are governed by state law. 36 C.F.R. § 4.2(a) (1992).

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

If you have been charged with OUI which took place on a road owned by the Federal government, National Park Service land, place on federally owned property, including military bases or other government-owned lands or roads, such as the GW Parkway and the Pentagon parking lot then you will be prosecuted in a Federal court.

Under 36 CFR 4.23 Operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs

"(a) Operating or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle is prohibited while:

       (1) Under the influence of alcohol, or a drug, or drugs, or any combination thereof, to a degree that renders the operator incapable of safe operation; or

       (2) The alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath is 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Provided however, that if State law that applies to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol establishes more restrictive limits of alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath, those limits supersede the limits specified in this paragraph."

Below is a sample case of federal DUI in Massachusetts as interpreted by a lawyer in our firm.

Have you been charged with federal DUI in Massachusetts and you are wondering what the penalty is for federal DUI and need a lawyer to defend you?

Are you concerned about the consequences of being charged with federal DUI in Massachusetts and you are wondering what the penalty is for federal DUI?

For a lot of our clients, a charge of federal DUI can result in the loss of their job, their security clearance, etc.

Don’t risk going to court without a lawyer, if you have been charged with a crime of federal DUI in Massachusetts.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

Joe v. United States

Facts:

Defendant sought review of the order from the United States District Court, which convicted him on involuntary manslaughter, reckless driving, and operating while under the influence of alcohol (OUI). Defendant was sentenced to 15 months in prison and one year of supervised release for involuntary manslaughter and 3 months in prison to run concurrently for each of the other convictions.

If you are facing a federal DUI case in Massachusetts, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Federal Court made the following holding:

• In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, the relevant question is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of facts could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court must consider circumstantial as well as direct evidence, and allow the government the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought to be established. The court does not weigh evidence or review the credibility of witnesses in resolving issues of substantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
• The purpose of establishing "chain of custody" as a threshold requirement to admission of evidence is to establish that the item to be introduced is what it purports to be. The ultimate question is whether the authentication testimony was sufficiently complete so as to convince the court that it is improbable that the original item had been exchanged with another or otherwise tampered with. Precision in developing chain of custody is not an iron-clad requirement. Admission of evidence is not prevented just because there may be a missing link in its chain of custody, so long as there is sufficient proof that the evidence is what it purports to be and has not been altered in any material aspect. Resolution of a chain of custody question rests with the sound discretion of the trial judge.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.


These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

If you have been charged with OUI which took place on a road owned by the Federal government, National Park Service land, place on federally owned property, including military bases or other government-owned lands or roads, such as the GW Parkway and the Pentagon parking lot then you will be prosecuted in a Federal court.

Under 36 CFR 4.23 Operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs

"(a) Operating or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle is prohibited while:

(1) Under the influence of alcohol, or a drug, or drugs, or any combination thereof, to a degree that renders the operator incapable of safe operation; or

(2) The alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath is 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Provided however, that if State law that applies to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol establishes more restrictive limits of alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath, those limits supersede the limits specified in this paragraph."

Below is a sample case of federal DUI in Massachusetts as interpreted by a lawyer in our firm.

Have you been charged with federal DUI in Massachusetts and you are wondering what the penalty is for federal DUI and need a lawyer to defend you?

Are you concerned about the consequences of being charged with federal DUI in Massachusetts and you are wondering what the penalty is for federal DUI?

For a lot of our clients, a charge of federal DUI can result in the loss of their job, their security clearance, etc.
Don’t risk going to court without a lawyer, if you have been charged with a crime of federal DUI in Massachusetts.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

Miller v. United States

Facts:

Defendant filed a motion to suppress the results of a breathalyzer test after he was charged with driving while intoxicated, operating while under the influence of alcohol (OUI), driving while under the influence of drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol, driving on a highway at a time when the defendant's privilege to drive was suspended, and failing to display drivers license upon demand of a uniformed police officer.

If you are facing a federal DUI case in Massachusetts, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Federal Court made the following holding:

• It is clear that an individual may be compelled to take a chemical test so long as there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Of course, unreasonable physical violence in administering the test would likely not be sanctioned and would likely invalidate the test.

•  An operator of a commercial vehicle is deemed to be driving under the influence of alcohol if the individual's blood alcohol concentration level is at or above .04 percent.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.


These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

If you have been charged with OUI which took place on a road owned by the Federal government, National Park Service land, place on federally owned property, including military bases or other government-owned lands or roads, such as the GW Parkway and the Pentagon parking lot then you will be prosecuted in a Federal court.

Under 36 CFR 4.23 Operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs

"(a) Operating or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle is prohibited while:

      (1) Under the influence of alcohol, or a drug, or drugs, or any combination thereof, to a degree that renders the operator incapable of safe operation; or

     (2) The alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath is 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Provided however, that if State law that applies to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol establishes more restrictive limits of alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath, those limits supersede the limits specified in this paragraph."

Below is a sample case of federal DUI in Massachusetts as interpreted by a lawyer in our firm.

Have you been charged with federal DUI in Massachusetts and you are wondering what the penalty is for federal DUI and need a lawyer to defend you?

Are you concerned about the consequences of being charged with federal DUI in Massachusetts and you are wondering what the penalty is for federal DUI?

For a lot of our clients, a charge of federal DUI can result in the loss of their job, their security clearance, etc.

Don’t risk going to court without a lawyer, if you have been charged with a crime of federal DUI in Massachusetts.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

George v. United States

Facts:

Defendant pled guilty to money laundering. Defendant raised issues with his presentence report, to wit: he challenged the criminal history points assigned for his prior convictions for operating a snowmobile under the influence (OUI) and for his conviction for violating a condition of his release, and he challenged the reduction given for his role in the offense, arguing that he was a minimal participant. The court addressed the issues.

If you are facing a federal DUI case in Massachusetts, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Federal Court made the following holding:

• Under National Park Service (NPS ) regulations, it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle under the influence (OUI) within the boundaries of a national park. 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a). Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 2.18(a), § 4.23 is made applicable to the operation of snowmobiles. Therefore, under NPS regulations, the same section covers both snowmobile and motor vehicle OUI.
• The United States Forest Service defines vehicle broadly enough to include snowmobiles. 36 C.F.R. § 261.2 defines a vehicle as any device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported, including any frame, chassis, or body of any motor vehicle, except devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks; defining motor vehicle to include a snowmobile: Motor vehicle means any vehicle which is self-propelled. 36 C.F.R. § 212.1 defines an over-snow vehicle as any motor vehicle designed for use over snow and that runs on a track or tracks and/or a ski or skis, while in use over snow. Regarding driving while under the influence, 36 C.F.R. § 261.13 prohibits using any vehicle off road while under the influence of alcohol. 36 C.F.R. § 261.13(e) prohibits the operation of any vehicle off National Forest System, State or County roads while under the influence of alcohol or other drug.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.


These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

If you have been charged with OUI which took place on a road owned by the Federal government, National Park Service land, place on federally owned property, including military bases or other government-owned lands or roads, such as the GW Parkway and the Pentagon parking lot then you will be prosecuted in a Federal court.

Under 36 CFR 4.23 Operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs

"(a) Operating or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle is prohibited while:
 
   (1) Under the influence of alcohol, or a drug, or drugs, or any combination thereof, to a degree that renders the operator incapable of safe operation; or
     (2) The alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath is 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Provided however, that if State law that applies to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol establishes more restrictive limits of alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath, those limits supersede the limits specified in this paragraph."

Below is a sample case of federal DUI in Massachusetts as interpreted by a lawyer in our firm.

Have you been charged with federal DUI in Massachusetts and you are wondering what the penalty is for federal DUI and need a lawyer to defend you?

Are you concerned about the consequences of being charged with federal DUI in Massachusetts and you are wondering what the penalty is for federal DUI?

For a lot of our clients, a charge of federal DUI can result in the loss of their job, their security clearance, etc.

Don’t risk going to court without a lawyer, if you have been charged with a crime of federal DUI in Massachusetts.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

Stalin v. United States

Facts:

Defendant appealed his conviction in the United States District Court for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1). Defendant had also been arrested for the state crime of operating under the influence (OUI) after he failed field sobriety tests.

If you are facing a federal DUI case in Massachusetts, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Federal Court made the following holding:

• Reasonable suspicion, a less demanding standard than probable cause, denotes at least a minimal level of objective justification for a stop. In evaluating whether reasonable suspicion is present, a court looks at the totality of the circumstances to see whether the detaining officer had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing. A declarant testimonial out-of-court statement is not admissible under the Confrontation Clause unless (1) the declarant testifies, or (2) the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination and the declarant is unavailable, (3) the evidence is admitted for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.



These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

If you have been charged with OUI which took place on a road owned by the Federal government, National Park Service land, place on federally owned property, including military bases or other government-owned lands or roads, such as the GW Parkway and the Pentagon parking lot then you will be prosecuted in a Federal court.

Under 36 CFR 4.23 Operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs

"(a) Operating or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle is prohibited while:

(1) Under the influence of alcohol, or a drug, or drugs, or any combination thereof, to a degree that renders the operator incapable of safe operation; or

(2) The alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath is 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Provided however, that if State law that applies to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol establishes more restrictive limits of alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath, those limits supersede the limits specified in this paragraph."


Below is a sample case of federal DUI in Massachusetts as interpreted by a lawyer in our firm.

Have you been charged with federal DUI in Massachusetts and you are wondering what the penalty is for federal DUI and need a lawyer to defend you?

Are you concerned about the consequences of being charged with federal DUI in Massachusetts and you are wondering what the penalty is for federal DUI?

For a lot of our clients, a charge of federal DUI can result in the loss of their job, their security clearance, etc.

Don’t risk going to court without a lawyer, if you have been charged with a crime of federal DUI in Massachusetts.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

Allen v. United States

Facts:

Defendant pled guilty to money laundering. Defendant raised issues with his presentence report, to wit: he challenged the criminal history points assigned for his prior convictions for operating a snowmobile under the influence (OUI) and for his conviction for violating a condition of his release, and he challenged the reduction given for his role in the offense, arguing that he was a minimal participant. The court addressed the issues.

If you are facing a federal DUI case in Massachusetts, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Federal Court made the following holding:

• Under National Park Service (NPS ) regulations, it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle under the influence (OUI) within the boundaries of a national park. 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a). Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 2.18(a), § 4.23 is made applicable to the operation of snowmobiles. Therefore, under NPS regulations, the same section covers both snowmobile and motor vehicle OUI.
• To determine whether a previous conviction should be included to calculate a defendant's criminal history category, once the government establishes the existence of a prior conviction, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that the earlier conviction was constitutionally infirm or otherwise inappropriate for consideration. Silence alone does not meet this burden, as the defendant is in the best position to offer details about his own criminal history.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.



These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

• Under Massachusetts law, there are administrative penalties for a person under the age of twenty-one whose blood alcohol content is.02 or higher..

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

• Courts applying U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.1(d) have interpreted U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.1, cmt. n. 4, as allowing the use of relevant conduct to broaden the boundaries of the offense of conviction rather than to shrink those boundaries.

• To establish a violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1001, the government must prove that defendant knowingly and willfully made or used a false writing or document, in relation to a matter within the jurisdiction of the United States government, with knowledge of its falsity..

• Under First Circuit precedent, federal, no state law determines whether an offense runs afoul of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2(c)(2). First, to ascertain the scope of § 4A1.2(c)(2), a court should look to the substance of the underlying state offense in order to determine whether it falls within the proscription. Then, the court looks to the relative danger posed by each..

• A state criminal case is ripe for the ministrations of a federal habeas court only after completion of the state proceedings. That is, after a defendant has been tried, convicted, sentenced, and has pursued available direct appeals..

• The Due Process Clause of the U.S. Const. prohibits deprivations of life, liberty, or property without "fundamental fairness" through governmental conduct that offends the community's sense of justice, decency, and fair play..

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.  We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

• Consistent with First Circuit authority, a district court reviews a guilty verdict to determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The elements of 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a)(1) are: (1) defendant was operating or in actual physical control of a vehicle; (2) while under the influence of alcohol to a degree of intoxication that rendered him incapable of safe operation; and, (3) within the boundaries National Park Service lands. 

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

• Under Massachusetts law, there are administrative penalties for a person under the age of twenty-one whose blood alcohol content is.02 or higher.
• Under 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(c)(2), refusal to take a breath test is not an option; refusal to take the test is "prohibited."

• The C.F.R. gives no guidance as to the evidentiary relationship between any given blood alcohol test result and capability to safely operate a motor vehicle, the crucial element of the charge of operating a motor vehicle while incapable of safely operating the same.
• To establish a violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a)(1), the government must prove that the defendant was incapable of safely operating a motor vehicle as a result of being under the influence of intoxicating liquor and/or drugs.

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

• When history has not provided a conclusive answer, courts have analyzed a search or seizure in light of traditional standards of reasonableness by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual's privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests. When an officer has probable cause to believe a person committed even a minor crime in his presence, the balancing of private and public interests is not in doubt. The warrantless arrest is constitutionally reasonable.
• The underlying command of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness, and the fact that an arrest may have violated a territorial-limitation statute is merely a factor to be considered when deciding whether this constitutional mandate has been followed. A warrantless arrest by a law officer is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed.

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

• Reasonable suspicion, a less demanding standard than probable cause, denotes at least a minimal level of objective justification for a stop. In evaluating whether reasonable suspicion is present, a court looks at the totality of the circumstances to see whether the detaining officer had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing. A declarant's testimonial out-of-court statement is not admissible under the Confrontation Clause unless (1) the declarant testifies, or (2) the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination and the declarant is unavailable, (3) the evidence is admitted for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.