18 U.S.C. § 1385
Use of Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 211
cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1961–2025 · leading case: United States v. Red Feather, 392 F. Supp. 916 (D.S.D. 1975).
United States v. Red Feather, 392 F. Supp. 916 (D.S.D. 1975). “The government’s Motion In Limine anticipates the defendants’ plan to adduce evidence to show that the United States marshals and agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on duty at Wounded Knee during the 1973 occupation were not performing their official duties lawfully…”
United States v. Michael Dreyer, 804 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2015). “See 18 U.S.C. § 1385 . The district court ruled it was not “unusual or inappropriate for NCIS to make a referral to [its] counterparts” and denied Dreyer’s motion.”
United States v. Tyronski Johnson, 410 F.3d 137 (4th Cir. 2005). “2d 694 (1966), or obtaining a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights; in the third, he contended that the drug test performed on his blood’at the Armed Forces Institute violated the prohibition on military intervention in civilian law enforcement codified in…”
State v. Gonzales, 247 P.3d 1111 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010). “Defendant moved for dismissal of the charges on grounds that the OSI's investigation violated the federal Posse Comitatus Act (the PCA), 18 U.S.C. § 1385 (1994). As explained in greater detail in the body of this opinion, the PCA places limitations on the degree to which the…”
United States v. Michael Dreyer, 767 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2014). “The Posse Comitatus Act (PCA), 18 U.S.C. § 1385 ,6 “prohibits Army and Air Force military personnel from participating in civilian law enforcement activities.”
United States v. Khamsouk, 57 M.J. 282 (C.A.A.F. 2002). “See Posse Comitatus Act, 18 USC § 1385 (2000).10 While a 9 In limited instances, commanders can authorize searches for individuals on property not within military control, in foreign countries.”
United States v. Wooten, 377 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2004). “Wooten raises five arguments relating to: (1) the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, 18 U.S.C. § 1385 (the “PCA”); (2) evidentiary rulings regarding another incident that occurred on May 3, 2002; (3) the restitution order; (4) decrease in offense level for acceptance of…”
Lamont v. Haig, 590 F.2d 1124 (D.C. Cir. 1978). “Appellants assert that the events that transpired then and there gave rise to an implied civil cause of action under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and 18 U.S.C. § 1385 , which penalizes criminally the use of elements of the Army or Air Force to execute the laws,…”
United States v. Ruby Davidson Walden & William Luther Walden, 490 F.2d 372 (4th Cir. 1974). “Defendants sought, both by pretrial motion to suppress and at trial, to exclude the testimonial evidence produced by the Marines’ investigation on the ground that the investigation violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, 18 U.S.C. § 1385 , and various military regulations…”
State v. Valdobinos, 858 P.2d 199 (Wash. 1993). “II Failure To Exclude Evidence Found in a Search by National Guardsmen The Posse Comitatus Act Valdobinos and Garibay assert next that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the evidence found in the search by police officers assisted by the National Guard.”
United States v. Mark Steven Hitchcock, 286 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2002). “Hitchcock filed another motion on May 10, 1999, seeking dismissal of all charges against him and suppression of all evidence on the grounds that NCIS and CID participation in the investigation leading to Hitchcock’s arrest violated the Posse Com-itatus Act (PCA), 18 U.”
United States v. Mohamed Basher Al-Talib, United States of Am. v. Hector Rivera Munoz, 55 F.3d 923 (4th Cir. 1995). “They also argue that the government violated the Posse Com-itatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385 , in setting up this sting.”
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.