18 U.S.C. § 1382

Entering military, naval, or Coast Guard property

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

Whoever, within the jurisdiction of the United States, goes upon any military, naval, or Coast Guard reservation, post, fort, arsenal, yard, station, or installation, for any purpose prohibited by law or lawful regulation; or

Whoever reenters or is found within any such reservation, post, fort, arsenal, yard, station, or installation, after having been removed therefrom or ordered not to reenter by any officer or person in command or charge thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 169 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1960–2026 · leading case: United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675 (1985).
United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675 (1985). · cites it 12× “The question presented is whether respondent may be convicted for violating 18 U. S. C. § 1382 , which makes it unlawful to reenter a military base after having been barred by the commanding officer.”
United States v. Apel, 134 S. Ct. 1144 (2014). · cites it 11× “A Magistrate Judge convicted him of violating 18 U. S. C. §1382 , which makes it a crime to reenter a “military.”
United States v. Ayala Ayala, 289 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2002). · cites it 8× “, Dennis Hickey Rivera, and Armando Torres Ortiz were convicted of entering onto the Camp Garcia Naval Installation on the island of Vieques, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1382 . Unpersuaded by their arguments on appeal, we affirm their convictions.”
Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828 (1976). · cites it 4× “" [4] Title 18 U. S. C. § 1382 , provides that "[w]hoever reenters or is found within [a military] reservation .”
United States v. James W. Douglass, 579 F.2d 545 (9th Cir. 1978). · cites it 9× “The appellant was convicted of violating the second paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 1382 1 because of certain conduct by him on July 21,1977.”
United States v. Maxwell-Anthony, 254 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2001). · cites it 4× “Following a bench trial, the district court found Maxwell guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1382 and sentenced him to thirty days in prison for this Class B misdemeanor.”
Flower v. United States, 407 U.S. 197 (1972). · cites it 8× “In an ensuing prosecution before the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on charges of violating 18 U. S. C. § 1382 ("Whoever reenters or is found [within a military post] after having been removed therefrom or ordered not to reenter by any officer or…”
United States v. Joan McCoy, 866 F.2d 826 (6th Cir. 1989). · cites it 10× “With two co-defendants, appellant Joan McCoy was tried and convicted on three counts of reentering a military installation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1382 , after having been ordered by the commanding officer not to reenter.”
United States v. Nigel D. Cottier, 759 F.2d 760 (9th Cir. 1985). · cites it 8× “BLAINE ANDERSON, Circuit Judge: Cottier appeals his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1382 , unlawful entry into a military installation.”
United States v. Bichsel, 156 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 1998). · cites it 5× “PER CURIAM: Twenty-two defendants appeal their convictions and sentences for reentering a military installation after the installation’s commander had ordered them not to reenter, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1382 . We affirm. Background Fort Benning, Georgia, is home to the…”
United States v. Norma Burgos-Andjar, 275 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2001). · cites it 3× “On July 6, 2001, after a bench trial, appellant was convicted of criminal trespass in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1382 . After finding the appellant guilty, the district court gave appellant and her co-defendants an opportunity to address the court.”
United States v. Clare Therese Grady, 18 F.4th 1275 (11th Cir. 2021). · cites it 3× “7 Section 1361 provides: Whoever willfully injures or commits any depredation against any property of the United States, or of any department or agency thereof, or any property USCA11 Case: 20-14341 Date Filed: 11/22/2021 Page: 10 of 39 10 Opinion of the Court 20-14341 violation…”
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.