10 U.S.C. § 374
Renumbered § 274]
[renumbered]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1986–2015 · leading case: United States v. Tyronski Johnson, 410 F.3d 137 (4th Cir. 2005).
United States v. Tyronski Johnson, 410 F.3d 137 (4th Cir. 2005). “See 10 U.S.C. § 374 (b). The blood test here neither falls within one of the categories of activities that can be performed by military personnel under § 374(b)(1)-(2) nor relates to the enforcement of any of the laws specified in § 374(b)(4).”
United States v. Michael Dreyer, 804 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2015). “at 567 (quoting 10 U.S.C. § 374 (b)), and that the Navy violated the “general policy” against “direct assistance to the Coast Guard” under the PCA, id.”
State v. Pattioay, 896 P.2d 911 (Haw. 1995). “See 10 U.S.C. § 374 (1988). Nevertheless, direct involvement of military personnel in civilian law enforcement is generally prohibited.”
United States v. James Kenneth Roberts, AKA Harold Weber, United States of Am. v. Clifton Lee Hawk, 779 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 1986). “10 U.S.C. § 374 (c)(1). Here, the equipment operated by the Navy personnel — the Reid and the boarding boat — was used to interdict or interrupt the passage of the Sea Waltz.”
United States v. Mohammad Waheedullah Khan Muhammad Hanif Abdul Karim Abdul Rasheed, 35 F.3d 426 (9th Cir. 1994). “) (holding that Navy interception of drug smuggling ship violated 10 U.S.C. § 374 , which allowed use of Navy equipment only for monitoring and communication), cer t.”
United States v. Leonardo Mendoza-Cecelia, Terry Lee Greenberg, Hector Favio Marin-Hernandez, 963 F.2d 1467 (11th Cir. 1992). “Greenberg nevertheless argues that 10 U.S.C.A. § 374 (West Supp.1992) bars naval personnel from operating naval equipment for law enforcement purposes without the express authorization of the Secretary of Defense.”
United States v. Rasheed, 802 F. Supp. 312 (D. Haw. 1992). “10 U.S.C. § 374 (b)(1)(A) and § 374(b)(4)(A)(iv).”
United States v. Allen Eugene Hartley & John Joseph Murphy, 796 F.2d 112 (5th Cir. 1986). “The House of Representatives report, which accompanied the enactment of 10 U.S.C. § 374 (b), stated: The Committee anticipates, however, that an increased sensitivity to the needs of civilian law enforcement officials, particularly in drug enforcement, will permit more…”
Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 266 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2001). “” 10 U.S.C. § 374 (b)(1)(D) (2001 Supp.). See also 18 U.”
Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 331 F.3d 604 (9th Cir. 2003). “The government points to other statutes pertaining to the military's powers overseas, such as 10 U.S.C. § 374 (b)(1)(D) and 18 U.S.C. § 351 , arguing that these provisions “plainly envision foreign law enforcement activity.”
Extraterritorial Effect of the Posse Comitatus Act (OLC 1989). “10 U.S.C. § 374 (a) (1982). Section 374(b) provides that generally, such military equipment may be operated by military personnel only to the extent that “the equipment is used for monitoring and communicating 11 The provisions o f the 1981 Act were substantially modified in…”
Military Use of Infrared Radars Tech. to Assist Civilian Law Enf't Agencies (OLC 1991). “We conclude that such assistance is authorized by 10 U.S.C. § 374 (b)(2)(B), and not prohibited by 10 U.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 374(c)(1) — 1 case
Extraterritorial Effect of the Posse Comitatus Act (OLC 1989). “10 U.S.C. § 374 (a) (1982). Section 374(b) provides that generally, such military equipment may be operated by military personnel only to the extent that “the equipment is used for monitoring and communicating 11 The provisions o f the 1981 Act were substantially modified in…”
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.