18 U.S.C. § 1156
Intoxicants possessed unlawfully
Whoever, except for scientific, sacramental, medicinal or mechanical purposes, possesses intoxicating liquors in the Indian country or where the introduction is prohibited by treaty or an Act of Congress, shall, for the first offense, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and, for each subsequent offense, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
The term “Indian country” as used in this section does not include fee-patented lands in non-Indian communities or rights-of-way through Indian reservations, and this section does not apply to such lands or rights-of-way in the absence of a treaty or statute extending the Indian liquor laws thereto.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1980–2013 · leading case: United States v. Robert Billy Gipe, 672 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1982).
United States v. Robert Billy Gipe, 672 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1982). “PER CURIAM: Appellant Gipe appeals from his conviction for possessing intoxicating liquors in “Indian country” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1156 . 1 Because the district court did not apply the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard in determining the existence of one of the facts…”
Bittle v. Bahe, 2008 OK 10 (Okla. 2008). “Title 18 U.S.C. § 1156 provides in pertinent part: Whoever, except for scientific, sacramental, medicinal, or mechanical purposes, possesses intoxicating liquors in the Indian country or where the introduction is prohibited by treaty or an Act of Congress, shall, for the first…”
United States v. Damien Zepeda, 705 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2013). “It applies only when the status of the site is an element of the offense but is not jurisdictional, as is true under 18 U.S.C. § 1156 , the statute at issue in Gipe.”
Hydro Resources, Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 608 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2010). “However the majority chooses to frame it, a determination that land is privately held in fee will necessarily foreclose the possibility that the land is part of a dependent Indian community.”
Nat'l Org. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) v. Bell, 488 F. Supp. 123 (D.D.C. 1980). “, 18 U.S.C. § 1156 (1976) (maximum penalty of one year imprisonment and $500 fine for unlawful possession of intoxicants on Indian land).”
Fort Belknap Indian Cmty. of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation v. Montana, 793 F. Supp. 949 (D. Mont. 1992). “…and, for each subsequent offense, be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. 18 U.S.C. § 1156 .”
New York State Dep't of Taxation & Fin. v. St. Regis Grp., 161 Misc. 2d 383 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1994). “( 18 USC § 1156 .) However, 18 USC § 1161 decriminalizes such sale or possession where "such act or transaction is in conformity both with the laws of the State in which such act or transaction occurs and with an ordinance duly adopted by the tribe * * * certified by the…”
Hydro Resources, Inc. v. USEPA, 608 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2009). “” 18 U.S.C. § 1156 . 5 In Venetie, the Supreme Court did not criticize, or even refer to, M azurie, and so the approach adopted by the Court in M azurie remains valid.”
United States v. Hinkson (9th Cir. 2009). “5 Counts 10 and 11 charged Hinkson with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1156 by threatening to kill the children of Cook and Hines.”
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.