18 U.S.C. § 701
Official badges, identification cards, other insignia
Whoever manufactures, sells, or possesses any badge, identification card, or other insignia, of the design prescribed by the head of any department or agency of the United States for use by any officer or employee thereof, or any colorable imitation thereof, or photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes or executes any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any such badge, identification card, or other insignia, or any colorable imitation thereof, except as authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1934–2024 · leading case: Dickerson Ex Rel. Davison v. Napolitano, 604 F.3d 732 (2d Cir. 2010).
Dickerson Ex Rel. Davison v. Napolitano, 604 F.3d 732 (2d Cir. 2010). “1975), in which the Tenth Circuit upheld 18 U.S.C. § 701 , which prohibited the possession of any badge, identification card, or other insignia that was a replica of those prescribed by the head of any department, "or any colorable imitation thereof.”
United States v. Brett C. Kimberlin, 781 F.2d 1247 (7th Cir. 1985). “Four counts of the eight on which the jury convicted defendant charged that defendant had unlawfully possessed a Department of Defense insignia, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 701 (1976). The other four counts on which the jury convicted defendant charged that defendant had falsely…”
United States v. Roe, 606 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 2010). “NOTES [1] The indictment also charged Roe with one count of possession of a false badge of an agency of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 701 . The district court subsequently granted Roe's motion for judgment of acquittal as to that count.”
FN Herstal SA v. Clyde Armory Inc., 838 F.3d 1071 (11th Cir. 2016). “204-9003(a), and provides that the contractor acknowledges that 18 U.S.C. § 701 prohibits the use of the USSO-COM emblem or logo without authorization by USSOCOM, see SOFAES 5652.”
United States v. Sikut, 488 F. Supp. 2d 291 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). “§ 1001 (a)(2), at 2-3, (“Count II”); and “knowingly and unlawfully manufacturing] and possessing] badges, identification cards and other insignia, and colorable imitations thereof, which were of a design prescribed by the heads of’ various government agencies, in violation of 18…”
United States v. Brett C. Kimberlin, 805 F.2d 210 (7th Cir. 1987). “The magistrate found probable cause to believe that official badges, identification cards, and other insignia of the design prescribed by the Department of Defense and facsimilies of the Seal of the President, possessed and used in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 701 and § 713, were…”
United States v. Kenneth A. Lee, & Magistrate Bert S. Tokairin & the United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Hawaii, 786 F.2d 951 (9th Cir. 1986). “1382, and unlawful possession of a military identification card in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 701 . The district court has indicated that its policy applies only to traffic offenses, and that it is willing to accept jurisdiction over non-traffic offenses.”
Matter of Shillaire, 549 A.2d 336 (D.C. 1988). “entered a plea of guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to misdemeanor violations of 18 U.S.C. § 701 (unlawful possession of Federal insignia) and 18 U.”
United States v. Roe, 575 F. Supp. 2d 690 (D. Maryland 2008). “The Court considers Defendant John Alvin Roe’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal as to Count Two of the Indictment, which alleges unlawful possession of a col-orable imitation of a badge of the design prescribed by the head of an agency of the United States, in violation of 18…”
Council on Am.-Islamic Relations Action Network, Inc. v. Gaubatz, 31 F. Supp. 3d 237 (D.D.C. 2014). “” 18 U.S.C. § 701 (a). In response, Plaintiffs provide their own sworn testimony that Chris Gaubatz did remove documents from the shared drive.”
United States v. Perelman, 695 F.3d 866 (9th Cir. 2011). “1975) (interpreting the very similarly worded provision at 18 U.S.C. § 701 , which criminalizes unauthorized possession of government identifications or colorable imitations thereof, 3 and holding that “[t]he enactment of § 701 was intended to protect the public against the use…”
United States v. Perelman, 658 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2011). “1975) (interpreting the very similarly worded provision at 18 U.S.C. § 701 , which criminalizes unauthorized possession of government identifications or colorable imitations thereof, 3 and holding that “[t]he *1138 enactment of § 701 was intended to protect the public against…”
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.