18 U.S.C. § 846

Additional powers of the Attorney General

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

(a) The Attorney General is authorized to inspect the site of any accident, or fire, in which there is reason to believe that explosive materials were involved, in order that if any such incident has been brought about by accidental means, precautions may be taken to prevent similar accidents from occurring. In order to carry out the purpose of this subsection, the Attorney General is authorized to enter into or upon any property where explosive materials have been used, are suspected of having been used, or have been found in an otherwise unauthorized location. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as modifying or otherwise affecting in any way the investigative authority of any other Federal agency. In addition to any other investigatory authority they have with respect to violations of provisions of this chapter, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, together with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, shall have authority to conduct investigations with respect to violations of subsection (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), or (i) of section 844 of this title.(b) The Attorney General is authorized to establish a national repository of information on incidents involving arson and the suspected criminal misuse of explosives. All Federal agencies having information concerning such incidents shall report the information to the Attorney General pursuant to such regulations as deemed necessary to carry out the provisions of this subsection. The repository shall also contain information on incidents voluntarily reported to the Attorney General by State and local authorities.(Added Pub. L. 91–452, title XI, § 1102(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 959; amended Pub. L. 104–208, div. A, title I, § 101(f) [title VI, § 654(a)], Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–314, 3009–369; Pub. L. 107–296, title XI, § 1112(e)(2), (3), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2276.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2002—Pub. L. 107–296, § 1112(e)(3), substituted “Attorney General” for “Secretary” in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–296, § 1112(e)(3), substituted “Attorney General” for “Secretary” in two places.

Pub. L. 107–296, § 1112(e)(2), substituted “the Federal Bureau of Investigation, together with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives” for “the Attorney General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, together with the Secretary”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 107–296, § 1112(e)(3), substituted “Attorney General” for “Secretary” wherever appearing.

1996—Pub. L. 104–208 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2002 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 107–296 effective 60 days after Nov. 25, 2002, see section 4 of Pub. L. 107–296, set out as an Effective Date note under section 101 of Title 6, Domestic Security.

Authorization of Appropriations

Pub. L. 104–208, div. A, title I, § 101(f) [title VI, § 654(b)], Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–314, 3009–369, provided that: “There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this subsection [probably means “this section” which amended this section].”

Certification of Explosives Detection Canines

Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(3) [title VI, § 626], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–162, provided that: “Hereafter, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to establish scientific certification standards for explosives detection canines, and shall provide, on a reimbursable basis, for the certification of explosives detection canines employed by Federal agencies, or other agencies providing explosives detection services at airports in the United States.”

Similar provisions were contained in the following prior appropriation acts:

Pub. L. 106–58, title VI, § 630, Sept. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 473.

Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, § 101(h) [title VI, § 640], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–480, 2681–526.

Pub. L. 105–61, title VI, § 627, Oct. 10, 1997, 111 Stat. 1315.

Pub. L. 104–208, div. A, title I, § 101(f) [title VI, § 653(a)], Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–314, 3009–369.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 225 cases (27 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Kristine Bunch v. United States, 880 F.3d 938 (7th Cir. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kristine Bunch v. United States, 880 F.3d 938 (7th Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “The Secretary of the Treasury, or his delegate, the director of ATF, had at the relevant time statutory authority “to inspect the site of any accident, or fire, in which there is reason to believe that explosive materials were-involved.”

Pellegrino v. U.S. Transp. SEC. Admin., 896 F.3d 207 (3rd Cir. 2018). · cites it 4× “United States, the Seventh Circuit recently held that there were genuine disputes of material fact as to whether a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) forensic chemist fell within the proviso precisely because the forensic chemist may have been an “ATF officer”…”

United States v. Cazares, 121 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “” The issue presented by this appeal is whether the plea to the conspiracy charge under 18 U.S.C. § 846 admits conduct alleged as an overt act.”

United States v. McCoy, 995 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 2021). “§§ 924 (c)(1)(C)(i) and 2; conspiracy to 6 distribute and to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and heroin, in violation 7 of 18 U.S.C. §§ 846 , 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(D); and possession of a firearm by a 8 convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.”

United States v. Martinez, 584 F.3d 1022 (11th Cir. 2009). “MARCUS, Circuit Judge: Hector Martinez appeals his 78-month sentence following his conviction for conspiring to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(B). On the slender record…”

United States v. Wilson, 605 F.3d 985 (D.C. Cir. 2010). “The above represents only a small part of the evidence demonstrating a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 846 . Even were Leftridge’s testimony discredited by the undisclosed evidence, there is not a reasonable probability of a different verdict on Count 1 for any appellant.”

United States v. Alberto Calderon, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 713 (11th Cir. 1997). “Conspiracy Counts 2 Abella and Garcia also argue that the evidence, even if credible, merely established their presence or association with the other conspirators rather than the knowing participation that they correctly assert is required for their respective conspiracy…”

United States v. Rivera-Carrasquillo, 933 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2019). “§ 924 (h) ; • conspiring to engage in drug trafficking, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 846 , 860; and • conspiring to possess firearms during drug-trafficking crimes, see 18 U.”

United States v. Ward Wesley Wright, 343 F.3d 849 (6th Cir. 2003). “§ 1958 ; (8) interstate travel in aid of a crime of violence, in violation of § 1952(a)(2); and (4) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 846 , 841(a)(1). However, the Grand Jury returned a First Superseding…”

Nadine Pellegrino v. TSA, 937 F.3d 164 (3rd Cir. 2019). “at 943 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 846 (1994)), and offered, as other examples of the types of searches covered by the proviso, searches incident to arrest, protective sweeps, and searches conducted pursuant to the automobile exception, id.”

United States v. Hernandez, 93 F.3d 1493 (10th Cir. 1996). “§ 1952 (a)(3)), and conspiracy to possess pseudoephedrine ( 18 U.S.C. § 846 ). Defendants moved to suppress Silva’s statement and the drugs.”

United States v. James P. Hickok, 77 F.3d 992 (7th Cir. 1996). “§ 371 , "explicitly requires a conspiracy plus *1005 some act in furtherance of that conspiracy,” while the drug conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 846 , contains no such requirement.”

Show all 225 citing cases →

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.