(a) It is the policy of the Department of Defense that an effective, comprehensive traffic safety program be established and maintained at all military installations as prescribed in DoD Directive 6055.4.
1
(b) State vehicular and pedestrian traffic laws that are now or may hereafter be in effect shall be expressly adopted and made applicable on military installations to the extent provided by this part. All persons on a military installation shall comply with the vehicular and pedestrian traffic laws of the state in which the installation is located.
(c) Pursuant to the authority established in the Enclosure 1 to DoD Directive 5525.4
2, installation commanders of all DoD installations in the United States and over which the United States has exclusive or concurrent legislative jurisdiction are delegated the authority to establish additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic rules and regulations for their installations. All persons on a military installation shall comply with locally established vehicular and pedestrian traffic rules and regulations.
2 See footnote 1 to § 210.1.
(d) A person found guilty of violating, on a military installation, any state vehicular or pedestrian traffic law or local installation vehicular or pedestrian traffic rule or regulation made applicable to the installation under the provisions of this part is subject to a fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment for not more than 30 days, or both, for each violation (40 U.S.C. 318c).
(e) A copy of this part shall be posted in an appropriate place on the DoD installation concerned.
[46 FR 58306, Dec. 1, 1981, as amended at 56 FR 13285, Apr. 1, 1991; 56 FR 42939, Aug. 30, 1991]
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Boyer, 935 F. Supp. 1138 (D. Colo. 1996).
· cites it 8× “§ 42-4r-1101 (§ 1101) and 32 C.F.R. § 210.3 . Defendant argues that § 1101 is not a criminal statute that can be assimilated and made a federal crime pursuant to the Assimilative Crimes Act (ACA).”
United States v. Adams, 140 F.3d 895 (10th Cir. 1998).
· cites it 6× “He contends he should have been sentenced under 32 C.F.R. § 210.3 rather than under state law applicable through the Assimilative Crimes Act (ACA), 18 U.”
United States v. Brooks, 64 M.J. 587 (A.C.C.A. 2006).
· cites it 2× “at 1139-41 , is located in 32 C.F.R. § 210.3 (“Part 210 — Enforcement of *592 State Traffic Laws on DoD Installations .”
United States of Am. v. Rupert T. Doyle, 237 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2001).
“The court disagreed with the defendant’s contention that he should have been sentenced under 32 C.F.R. § 210.3 (d), a Department of Defense regulation that applies state traffic laws to military installations but provides a maximum punishment of thirty days in jail and a $50…”
United States v. Morgan, 46 F. App'x 515 (9th Cir. 2002).
· cites it 2× “Morgan contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction over his motor vehicle offense because 32 C.F.R. § 210.3 , which made Cal. Veh.Code § 4000(a) applicable on the military base, represents an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’ rule-making authority.”
United States v. Rupert T. Doyle (8th Cir. 2001).
“The court disagreed with the defendant's contention that he should have been sentenced under 32 C.F.R. § 210.3 (d), a Department of Defense regulation that applies state traffic laws to military installations but provides a maximum punishment of thirty days in jail and a $50…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.