18 U.S.C. § 1381
Enticing desertion and harboring deserters
Whoever entices or procures, or attempts or endeavors to entice or procure any person in the Armed Forces of the United States, or who has been recruited for service therein, to desert therefrom, or aids any such person in deserting or in attempting to desert from such service; or
Whoever harbors, conceals, protects, or assists any such person who may have deserted from such service, knowing him to have deserted therefrom, or refuses to give up and deliver such person on the demand of any officer authorized to receive him—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: United States v. Deanna Costello
United States v. Deanna Costello (2012)
“” To “har- bor” appears in still another federal criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1381 , which prohibits harboring military deserters, and there the word has been interpreted to mean providing lodging and care “after secreting the deserter.”
McBee v. Delica Co., Ltd. (2005)
“For example, both the treason statute, see 18 U.S.C. § 1381 , and the selective service statute, see 50 U.”
In re the Extradition of Handanović (2011)
“She also observes that B & H is not among the countries listed in the Treaties of Extradition in the notes to 18 U.S.C. § 1381 . A close reading of the documents cited by Handanovic shows that they do not support her position.”
United States v. Mitchell (1983)
“Furthermore, paragraph 161, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised edition) states: A solicitation in violation of this article [Article 82] is complete when a solicitation is made or advice is given with the wrongful intent to influence another or others to…”
United States v. Barber (1969)
“Whittle with harboring the escapee in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1381 . Count 6 was severed by the Court for a separate trial which was held on February 24-25, 1969 and resulted in conviction.”
United States v. Benton (1979)
“Although the law regarding the offense of solicitation is not well developed, we are convinced that counsel are correct in concluding that specific intent is an element of that offense.”
Elliott v. Johnson (1991)
“2; 18 U.S.C. § 1381 . *336 See State ex rel.”
United States v. Barber (1969)
“Whittle, with thereafter harboring the escapee in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1381 . At arraignment, all of the defendants entered pleas of not guilty with the exception of Mary E.”
Reverend Gene Bridges v. Admiral D. C. Davis, Reverend Gene Bridges v. Colonel D. McGough (1971)
“…moot is denied. The judgment of the lower court, in each case, is Affirmed. . 10 U.S.C. § 866 , 10 U.S.C. § 895 and 18 U.S.C. § 1381 .”
David Eugene Breeze v. United States (1968)
“” It is, therefore, unquestionable that the information in the present ease unmistakably accused each and both of the two defendants therein named, including the present appellant, of the violation of the quoted language of the second unnumbered paragraph of Title 18 U.S.C. §…”
Wolin v. Port of New York Authority (1968)
“In the rare case where the speech itself amounts to illegal activity, as where the speaker incites desertion from the armed forces or counsels insubordination by a serviceman, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1381 , 2387, the speaker is of course subject to arrest on warrant or probable cause…”
Helen Haley and Evelyn Archer v. United States (1954)
“Helen Haley and Evelyn Archer appeal from a judgment convicting them of two violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1381 (a) by harboring one Vaughan knowing him to be a deserter from military service and (b) refusing to give him up after the demand of an officer authorized to receive him.”
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.