10 U.S.C. § 807
Art. 7. Apprehension
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
807(a) 807(b) | 50:561(a). 50:561(b). | May 5, 1950, ch. 169, § 1 (Art. 7), 64 Stat. 111. |
807(c) | 50:561(c). | |
In subsection (a), the words “into custody” and “of a person” are transposed.
In subsection (c), the words “All” and “shall” are omitted as surplusage. The word “Commissioned” is inserted before the word “officers” for clarity. The word “therein” is substituted for the words “in the same”.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 107
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1957–2023 · leading case: Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 163 (1994).
Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 163 (1994). “7(c), UCMJ, 10 U. S. C. § 807 (c). Commanding officers can impose nonjudicial disciplinary punishment for minor offenses, without the intervention of a court-martial, which includes correctional custody, forfeiture of pay, reduction in grade, extra duties, restriction to certain…”
United States v. Alameda, 57 M.J. 190 (C.A.A.F. 2002). “This difference in terminology is based on the definitions of “apprehension” and “arrest” in Articles 7 and 9, Uniform Code of Military Justice 10 USC §§ 807 and 809, respectively. 20 United States v.”
Caulkins v. Pritzker, 2023 IL 129453 (Ill. 2023). “ees of a governmental agency who are (or were) authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law and has statutory powers of arrest or apprehension under section…”
United States v. Davenport, 9 M.J. 364 (1980). “Compare Article 7(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 807 (a), with Article 9(a), UCMJ, 10 U.”
United States v. Schneider, 14 M.J. 189 (1982). “Appellate government counsel counter by asserting that the agents had probable cause under Dunaway to “seize” the accused for questioning, even though he was not “apprehended” in the sense of Article 7, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 807 . 2 *191 In Dunaway a Rochester detective…”
State v. Morley, 952 P.2d 167 (Wash. 1998). “his opinion in this matter: The Uniform Code of Military Justice, which was in effect at the time the appellee was being prosecuted, provided a member of the armed forces with the following rights: no person may be apprehended unless the apprehending officer does so upon a…”
United States v. Wilson, 6 M.J. 214 (1979). “To meet the test of a lawful arrest under Article 7, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 807 , there are two prerequisites: first, that the person making the apprehension is authorized under service regulations to apprehend; and second, “reasonable belief that an…”
United States v. Weiss, 36 M.J. 224 (1992). “7(c), UCMJ, 10 USC § 807 (c)); make arrests (Art. 9(b), UCMJ, 10 USC § 809 (b)); serve as an investigating officer (Art.”
United States v. Ezell, 6 M.J. 307 (1979). “Therefore, to effectuate that command objective, it is said that the commander necessarily becomes a law-enforcement official.”
United States v. Donald Eugene Banks, 539 F.2d 14 (9th Cir. 1976). “See 10 U.S.C. § 807 . He insists that using the military to enforce *16 the civil laws is prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act.”
United States v. Rozier, 1 M.J. 469 (1976). “Since a serviceperson may be apprehended and confined only if probable cause (or reasonable belief) exists that an offense has been committed and that he committed it, Articles 7(b) and 9(d), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C.A. §§ 807 (b), 809(d), the shore patrol members who apprehended the…”
United States v. Cordero, 11 M.J. 210 (1981). “See Articles 7(b) and 9(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 807 (b) and 809(a). See generally United States v.”
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.