U.S. Code » Title 10 » Subtitle Subtitle A— General Military Law › Part PART II— PERSONNEL › Chapter CHAPTER 47— UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER X— PUNITIVE ARTICLES

10 U.S.C. § 920c

Art. 120c. Other sexual misconduct

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Indecent Viewing, Visual Recording, or Broadcasting.—Any person subject to this chapter who, without legal justification or lawful authorization—(1) knowingly and wrongfully views the private area of another person, without that other person’s consent and under circumstances in which that other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy;(2) knowingly photographs, videotapes, films, or records by any means the private area of another person, without that other person’s consent and under circumstances in which that other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy; or(3) knowingly broadcasts or distributes any such recording that the person knew or reasonably should have known was made under the circumstances proscribed in paragraphs (1) and (2);is guilty of an offense under this section and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.(b)Forcible Pandering.—Any person subject to this chapter who compels another person to engage in an act of prostitution with any person is guilty of forcible pandering and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.(c)Indecent Exposure.—Any person subject to this chapter who intentionally exposes, in an indecent manner, the genitalia, anus, buttocks, or female areola or nipple is guilty of indecent exposure and shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.(d)Definitions.—In this section:(1)Act of prostitution.—The term “act of prostitution” means a sexual act or sexual contact (as defined in section 920(g) of this title (article 120(g))) on account of which anything of value is given to, or received by, any person.(2)Private area.—The term “private area” means the naked or underwear-clad genitalia, anus, buttocks, or female areola or nipple.(3)Reasonable expectation of privacy.—The term “under circumstances in which that other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means—(A) circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of a private area of the person was being captured; or(B) circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the person would not be visible to the public.(4)Broadcast.—The term “broadcast” means to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons.(5)Distribute.—The term “distribute” means delivering to the actual or constructive possession of another, including transmission by electronic means.(6)Indecent manner.—The term “indecent manner” means conduct that amounts to a form of immorality relating to sexual impurity which is grossly vulgar, obscene, and repugnant to common propriety, and tends to excite sexual desire or deprave morals with respect to sexual relations.(Added Pub. L. 112–81, div. A, title V, § 541(c), Dec. 31, 2011, 125 Stat. 1409.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Amendment by Pub. L. 112–81 effective 180 days after Dec. 31, 2011, and applicable with respect to offenses committed on or after such effective date, see section 541(f) of Pub. L. 112–81, set out as an Effective Date of 2011 Amendment note under section 843 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 98 cases (52 in the last 5 years), 2013–2026 · leading case: United States v. Goings, 72 M.J. 202 (C.A.A.F. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Goings, 72 M.J. 202 (C.A.A.F. 2013). · cites it 4× “See Article 120c(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 920c(a) (2012). 16 United States v.”
United States v. Quick, 74 M.J. 517 (N.M.C.C.A. 2014). · cites it 4× “]” 10 U.S.C. § 920c(a)(2). The third paragraph criminalizes knowingly broadcasting or distributing “any such recording that the person knew or reasonably should have known was made under the circumstances proscribed in paragraphs (1) and (2)[J” 10 U.”
United States v. Johnston, 75 M.J. 563 (N.M.C.C.A. 2016). “10 U.S.C. § 920c(c). Unlike prior versions, this statute requires neither a public setting nor a public view.”
United States v. Private E1 MARQUES D. ENTZMINGER, 76 M.J. 518 (A.C.C.A. 2017). “The staff judge advocate (SJA) provided incorrect legal advice to the convening authority in the addendum to the staff judge advocate’s post-trial recommendation (SJAR) when he advised the convening authority that no legal error occurred regarding appellant’s conviction' for…”
United States v. Michael Coulson, 86 F.4th 1189 (8th Cir. 2023). · cites it 5× “Michael Ryan Coulson was convicted at a court martial for “forcible pandering” in violation of Article 120c(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), codified at 10 U.S.C. § 920c(b) (2012). He later failed to register as a sex offender in Iowa and pleaded guilty to…”
Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 34186 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 470 Mass. 554 (Mass. 2015). “10 U.S.C. § 920c (2012). Article 134 may only be used to criminalize conduct not covered by another article of the code.”
United States v. Bessmertnyy (A.F.C.C.A. 2019). · cites it 8× “ACM 39322 casions, and one specification of distribution of an indecent recording on di- vers occasions, in violation of Article 120c, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 920c. 1,2 The three offenses involve Appellant’s recording and distributing images of his…”
United States v. Private E2 NICHOLAS E. DAVIS (A.C.C.A. 2018). · cites it 8× “Article 120c, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 920c (2012). Reasonable Expectation of Privacy “Reasonable expectation of privacy,” for the purposes of the charged offense, is defined as “[c]ircumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could…”
United States v. Lee (A.F.C.C.A. 2020). · cites it 3× “See gener- ally 10 U.S.C. § 920c; R.C.M. 916(a), (j). Therefore, R.”
United States v. Marschalek (A.F.C.C.A. 2026). · cites it 3× “ACM S32776 preemption doctrine because the misconduct is covered by Article 120c, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 920c; (2) whether the military judge failed to resolve an issue of fact as to actus reus, and failed to determine whether Appellant’s conduct fell within a protected liberty…”
United States v. Marschalek (A.F.C.C.A. 2026). · cites it 3× “ACM S32776 10 U.S.C. § 920c; (2) whether the military judge failed to resolve an issue of fact as to actus reus, and failed to determine whether Appellant’s conduct fell within a protected liberty interest, thereby rendering Appellant’s guilty plea improvident; (3) whether the…”
United States v. Marshalek (A.F.C.C.A. 2026). · cites it 3× “ACM S32776 preemption doctrine because the misconduct is covered by Article 120c, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 920c; (2) whether the military judge failed to resolve an issue of fact as to actus reus, and failed to determine whether Appellant’s conduct fell within a protected liberty…”
Show all 98 citing cases →
— 10 U.S.C. § 920c(a) — 8 cases
United States v. Goings, 72 M.J. 202 (C.A.A.F. 2013). “See Article 120c(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 920c(a) (2012). 16 United States v.”
United States v. Bessmertnyy (A.F.C.C.A. 2019). “ACM 39322 casions, and one specification of distribution of an indecent recording on di- vers occasions, in violation of Article 120c, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 920c. 1,2 The three offenses involve Appellant’s recording and distributing images of his…”
United States v. McDonald (N.M.C.C.A. 2016).
United States v. Christopher (N.M.C.C.A. 2017).
United States v. Batson (A.F.C.C.A. 2021).
— 10 U.S.C. § 920c(a)(1) — 2 cases
United States v. Nicola (C.A.A.F. 2019).
United States v. Mays (C.A.A.F. 2023).
— 10 U.S.C. § 920c(a)(2) — 4 cases
United States v. Quick, 74 M.J. 517 (N.M.C.C.A. 2014). “]” 10 U.S.C. § 920c(a)(2). The third paragraph criminalizes knowingly broadcasting or distributing “any such recording that the person knew or reasonably should have known was made under the circumstances proscribed in paragraphs (1) and (2)[J” 10 U.”
United States v. Davis (C.A.A.F. 2020).
United States v. Schmidt (C.A.A.F. 2022).
United States v. Zhong (A.F.C.C.A. 2024).
— 10 U.S.C. § 920c(a)(3) — 3 cases
United States v. Quick, 74 M.J. 517 (N.M.C.C.A. 2014). “]” 10 U.S.C. § 920c(a)(2). The third paragraph criminalizes knowingly broadcasting or distributing “any such recording that the person knew or reasonably should have known was made under the circumstances proscribed in paragraphs (1) and (2)[J” 10 U.”
United States v. Bessmertnyy (A.F.C.C.A. 2019). “ACM 39322 casions, and one specification of distribution of an indecent recording on di- vers occasions, in violation of Article 120c, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 920c. 1,2 The three offenses involve Appellant’s recording and distributing images of his…”
United States v. Private E2 NICHOLAS E. DAVIS (A.C.C.A. 2018). “Article 120c, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 920c (2012). Reasonable Expectation of Privacy “Reasonable expectation of privacy,” for the purposes of the charged offense, is defined as “[c]ircumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could…”
— 10 U.S.C. § 920c(a)(l) — 1 case
United States v. Quick, 74 M.J. 517 (N.M.C.C.A. 2014). “]” 10 U.S.C. § 920c(a)(2). The third paragraph criminalizes knowingly broadcasting or distributing “any such recording that the person knew or reasonably should have known was made under the circumstances proscribed in paragraphs (1) and (2)[J” 10 U.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 920c(b) — 3 cases
United States v. Michael Coulson, 86 F.4th 1189 (8th Cir. 2023). “Michael Ryan Coulson was convicted at a court martial for “forcible pandering” in violation of Article 120c(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), codified at 10 U.S.C. § 920c(b) (2012). He later failed to register as a sex offender in Iowa and pleaded guilty to…”
Drenning v. Del Toro (E.D. Va. 2024).
United States v. Coulson (A.F.C.C.A. 2015).
— 10 U.S.C. § 920c(c) — 6 cases
United States v. Johnston, 75 M.J. 563 (N.M.C.C.A. 2016). “10 U.S.C. § 920c(c). Unlike prior versions, this statute requires neither a public setting nor a public view.”
United States v. Miller (A.F.C.C.A. 2021).
Csady v. Ashworth (W.D. Va. 2025).
United States v. Marschalek (A.F.C.C.A. 2026). “ACM S32776 preemption doctrine because the misconduct is covered by Article 120c, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 920c; (2) whether the military judge failed to resolve an issue of fact as to actus reus, and failed to determine whether Appellant’s conduct fell within a protected liberty…”
United States v. Marschalek (A.F.C.C.A. 2026). “ACM S32776 10 U.S.C. § 920c; (2) whether the military judge failed to resolve an issue of fact as to actus reus, and failed to determine whether Appellant’s conduct fell within a protected liberty interest, thereby rendering Appellant’s guilty plea improvident; (3) whether the…”
— 10 U.S.C. § 920c(d)(1) — 1 case
United States v. Michael Coulson, 86 F.4th 1189 (8th Cir. 2023). “Michael Ryan Coulson was convicted at a court martial for “forcible pandering” in violation of Article 120c(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), codified at 10 U.S.C. § 920c(b) (2012). He later failed to register as a sex offender in Iowa and pleaded guilty to…”
— 10 U.S.C. § 920c(d)(2) — 5 cases
United States v. Quick, 74 M.J. 517 (N.M.C.C.A. 2014). “]” 10 U.S.C. § 920c(a)(2). The third paragraph criminalizes knowingly broadcasting or distributing “any such recording that the person knew or reasonably should have known was made under the circumstances proscribed in paragraphs (1) and (2)[J” 10 U.”
United States v. Bessmertnyy (A.F.C.C.A. 2019). “ACM 39322 casions, and one specification of distribution of an indecent recording on di- vers occasions, in violation of Article 120c, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 920c. 1,2 The three offenses involve Appellant’s recording and distributing images of his…”
United States v. Private E2 NICHOLAS E. DAVIS (A.C.C.A. 2018). “Article 120c, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 920c (2012). Reasonable Expectation of Privacy “Reasonable expectation of privacy,” for the purposes of the charged offense, is defined as “[c]ircumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could…”
United States v. Zhong (A.F.C.C.A. 2024).
United States v. Menard (A.F.C.C.A. 2025).
— 10 U.S.C. § 920c(d)(3) — 3 cases
United States v. Private E2 NICHOLAS E. DAVIS (A.C.C.A. 2018). “Article 120c, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 920c (2012). Reasonable Expectation of Privacy “Reasonable expectation of privacy,” for the purposes of the charged offense, is defined as “[c]ircumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could…”
United States v. Bessmertnyy (A.F.C.C.A. 2019). “ACM 39322 casions, and one specification of distribution of an indecent recording on di- vers occasions, in violation of Article 120c, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 920c. 1,2 The three offenses involve Appellant’s recording and distributing images of his…”
United States v. Menard (A.F.C.C.A. 2025).
— 10 U.S.C. § 920c(d)(4) — 1 case
United States v. Private E2 NICHOLAS E. DAVIS (A.C.C.A. 2018). “Article 120c, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 920c (2012). Reasonable Expectation of Privacy “Reasonable expectation of privacy,” for the purposes of the charged offense, is defined as “[c]ircumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could…”
— 10 U.S.C. § 920c(d)(5) — 2 cases
United States v. Bessmertnyy (A.F.C.C.A. 2019). “ACM 39322 casions, and one specification of distribution of an indecent recording on di- vers occasions, in violation of Article 120c, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 920c. 1,2 The three offenses involve Appellant’s recording and distributing images of his…”
United States v. Private E2 NICHOLAS E. DAVIS (A.C.C.A. 2018). “Article 120c, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 920c (2012). Reasonable Expectation of Privacy “Reasonable expectation of privacy,” for the purposes of the charged offense, is defined as “[c]ircumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could…”
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.