18 U.S.C. § 702
Uniform of armed forces and Public Health Service
Whoever, in any place within the jurisdiction of the United States or in the Canal Zone, without authority, wears the uniform or a distinctive part thereof or anything similar to a distinctive part of the uniform of any of the armed forces of the United States, Public Health Service or any auxiliary of such, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1948–2023 · leading case: United States v. Michael Hamilton, 699 F.3d 356 (4th Cir. 2012).
United States v. Michael Hamilton, 699 F.3d 356 (4th Cir. 2012). “§ 641 (the theft conviction); (3) wearing a military uniform without authoriza- tion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 702 ; and (4) wearing military medals and other insignia (military medals) without authori- zation, in violation of 18 U.”
Schacht v. United States, 398 U.S. 58 (1970). “The petitioner, Daniel Jay Schacht, was indicted in a United States District Court for violating 18 U. S. C. § 702 , which makes it a crime for any person "without authority [to wear] the uniform or a distinctive part thereof .”
United States v. Elven Swisher, 811 F.3d 299 (9th Cir. 2016). “We also reject Perelman’s reasoning that § 704(a) is like the statutes described in Alvarez that prohibit impersonation of government officials, like 18 U.”
Sult v. State, 906 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 2005). “43(2), Florida Statutes (2004), is almost identical to the federal armed services uniform ban contained in 18 U.S.C. § 702 (2000), which the Supreme Court held valid in Schacht v.”
Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 (1974). “Title 18 U. S. C. § 702 prohibits the wearing of a military uniform, any part of such uniform, or anything similar to a military uniform or part thereof without proper authorization.”
United States v. Perelman, 695 F.3d 866 (9th Cir. 2011). “2d 44 (1970), the Supreme Court addressed a constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 702 , which bars the unauthorized wearing of military uniforms.”
State v. McLamb, 932 P.2d 266 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “” The Court in Schacht was concerned solely with the last portion of the statutory exception, specifically stating: Our previous cases would seem to make it clear that 18 U.S.C. § 702 , making it an offense to wear our military uniforms without authority is, standing alone, a…”
United States v. Perelman, 658 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2011). “2d 44 (1970), the Supreme Court addressed a constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 702 , which bars the unauthorized wearing of military uniforms.”
United States v. Jarrett Vander Smith, Jr., & Daniel Jay Schacht, 414 F.2d 630 (5th Cir. 1969). “*632 Smith and Schacht were indicted, tried by a jury and convicted of violating 18 U.S.C.A. § 702 (1964) 2 , which prohibits the unauthorized wearing of a distinctive part of an Army uniform.”
United States v. Wight, 176 F.2d 376 (2d Cir. 1949). “In case C 128-264, on a plea of guilty to an information charging illegal wearing of an Army uniform, 18 U.S.C.A. § 702 , he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.”
R. David Finzer, Father v. Marion S. Barry, Jr., Mayor, Dist. of Columbia, 798 F.2d 1450 (D.C. Cir. 1986). “After wearing an army uniform in a street skit protesting American involvement in the Vietnam war, Schacht had been convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 702 , which forbids unauthorized wearing of the uniform of the armed forces of the United States.”
Forgey v. State, 886 N.E.2d 16 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “The regulations further establish, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 702 , that the penalty for an unauthorized wearing of the Marine Corps uniform includes a fine and/or not more than six months imprisonment.”
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.