10 U.S.C. § 375
Renumbered § 275]
[renumbered]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40
cases, 1986–2017 · leading case: State v. Pattioay
State v. Pattioay (1995)
“The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a…”
United States v. Michael Dreyer (2015)
“The en banc court could not conclude that the investigation had a legitimate independent military purpose because the methodology employed so clearly violated Department of Defense and naval policy, as well as the boundary Congress imposed through the PCA and 10 U.S.C. § 375 .…”
State v. Short (1989)
“§ 1385 (the posse comitatus act) or 10 U.S.C. § 375 by initiating undercover investigations for local law enforcement agencies, and therefore it was error to allow the testimony of Agent Kramer.”
United States v. Mark Steven Hitchcock (2002)
“We must decide whether military participation in a civilian criminal investigation violated the Posse Comitatus Act or 10 U.S.C. § 375 . Because we conclude that the military’s participation falls under the “independent military purpose” exception, we affirm the district court’s…”
United States v. Rasheed (1992)
“Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and 10 U.S.C. § 875 . Defendants challenge the Navy's involvement in apprehending the Lucky Star.”
United States v. Mohammad Waheedullah Khan Muhammad Hanif Abdul Karim Abdul Rasheed (1994)
“IV The crew members argue that the government violated the Posse Comitatus Act and 10 U.S.C. § 375 by involving the Navy in the seizure of the LUCKY STAR.”
United States v. Tyronski Johnson (2005)
“10 U.S.C. § 375 . It also comports with the legislature’s explicit rejection of a proposed provision that would have permitted military personnel to make arrests and seizures in furtherance of civilian enforcement of drug laws.”
Larry Charbert Hayes v. Warden Hawes and Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General for the State of Illinois (1990)
“§ 1385 , 1 or 10 U.S.C. § 375 , 2 which also restricts military participation in civilian law enforcement activities.”
United States v. Thompson (1990)
“Violation of 10 U.S.C. § 375 At trial, through four separate motions to suppress, defense counsel waged a multifaceted attack on the admissibility of the evidence seized both by the civilian detectives and by the AFOSI agents.”
United States v. Fawaz Yunis, A/K/A Nazeeh (1991)
“Nor is Yunis helped by 10 U.S.C. § 375 (1988), which requires the Secretary of Defense to issue regulations prohibiting “direct participation” by military personnel in a civilian “search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity” unless expressly authorized by law.”
Kim v. State (1991)
“The use of military personnel for surveillance or as undercover agents is "direct participation" in violation of the Act, 10 U.S.C. § 375 (1988), and 32 C.F.R. § 213.”
United States v. Lewis (2011)
“§ 1385 , and 10 U.S.C. § 375 ; (3) trial counsel failed to move to exclude the computer and hard drive that were seized during the search of Defendant’s home because the chain-of-custody was not satisfied; and (4) trial counsel failed to conduct an adequate pre-trial…”
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.