18 U.S.C. § 2152

Fortifications, harbor defenses, or defensive sea areas

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

Whoever willfully trespasses upon, injures, or destroys any of the works or property or material of any submarine mine or torpedo or fortification or harbor-defense system owned or constructed or in process of construction by the United States; or

Whoever willfully interferes with the operation or use of any such submarine mine, torpedo, fortification, or harbor-defense system; or

Whoever knowingly, willfully, or wantonly violates any duly authorized and promulgated order or regulation of the President governing persons or vessels within the limits of defensive sea areas, which the President, for purposes of national defense, may from time to time establish by executive order—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1960–1988 · leading case: Feliciano v. United States, 297 F. Supp. 1356 (D.P.R. 1969).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Feliciano v. United States, 297 F. Supp. 1356 (D.P.R. 1969). · cites it 4× “§ 96 as shown above, continues unimpaired in 18 U.S.C. § 2152 . Section 2152 provides for the punishment of violators of: any duly authorized and promulgated order or regulation of the President governing persons or vessels within the limits of defensive sea areas, which the…”

United States v. Louisiana, 363 U.S. 1 (1960). “See 1953 Senate Hearings 1087-1088; American Law Institute, Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Tentative Draft No. 2, May 8, 1958), §§ 8 (c), 21.”

Albert Watson, Jr. v. United States, 439 F.2d 442 (D.C. Cir. 1970). “18 U.S.C. § 2152 et seq. . E. g., Stewart v.”

United States v. Angcog, 190 F. Supp. 696 (D. Guam 1961). · cites it 3× “Two: violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2152 ; and Count Three: violation of 18 U.”

Ramon Feliciano v. United States of Am., 422 F.2d 943 (1st Cir. 1970). “However, it seems clear that Congress chose to confer a broader power on the President, who was empowered to create defensive sea areas when they were “necessary in his discretion for purposes of national defense.”

Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation to Extend the Territorial Sea (OLC 1988). “18 U.S.C. § 2152 . See also U.S. Naval War College, International Law Situation and Documents— 1956 ai 603-04 (1957) (listing defensive sea areas established by the President).”

Francisco Giyolen Buenaventura v. United States of Am., Loncito Esperanza Suente v. United States, 291 F.2d 86 (9th Cir. 1961). “The appellants were charged, in identical two-count informations filed in the United States District Court for the Territory of Guam, with unlawfully entering the Guam Island Naval Defensive Sea Area in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2152 , a felony (Count I), 1 and with stowing…”

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.