You could only face such a court-martial if the civilian authorities waived jurisdiction over the case. If the case is adjudicated in a civilian court, there is no possibility of a court-martial.
In the case of a multi-jurisdictional case the MPs and the cops won’t care. Whoever catches him arrests him. Later the lawyers figure it out. In the case of traffic violations you are heard in whatever jurisdiction it occurred, even right outside the gate. Even serious charges like DUI. However in that case if you are convicted you would probably get punished by the army too. It’s not double jeopardy since the punishment would be under Article 15, nonjudicial punishment. For serious crimes local prosecutors often have no problem giving up jurisdiction. It takes a case off thier load and it is often easier to get a conviction in a military court. Jury nullification is much harder to do. A jury of soldiers is less likely to be swayed in the favor of the defendant because he had a tough childhood. If it is a politically sensitiv case who knows what will happen. The prosecutor may want to appear tough against the army for his political career. If there is a conflict it will have to go before a judge. I believe it would be the first layer of federal court in the area.
Wrong. The military must have jurisdiction. If the civilian authorities do not waive jurisdiction, the charges may not be disposed of at NJP or Court-Martial. I’ll provide a link to the UCMJ tonight when I get home from work.
Wrong. If you are convicted of DUI outside of base you can get an Article 15. Maybe officially it won’t be for DUI. It will be for disobeying an order or some such. The unit commander would have made a ton of safety briefings by then. You can’t get out of basic training without being told not to drink and drive. If I get a DUI in Austin there is no way the court on FT Hood are going to take the case. The local police ran the breathalyzer, made the determination of probable cause did the field sobreity tests. They won’t be coming to FT Hood to testify. I had more than one friend busted in rank for DUI and none of them got busted on base.
I’m not so sure about this. Taken from here…
Here’s the jurisdiction:
And here’s all I could find on the relationship with civil authorities, which makes it sound very much like military authorities are perfectly free to adjudicate in addition to, above, and beyond civilian authority if they choose.
As I read this, not only can a military person be tried under civilian trials and courts-martial, but they may also be required to serve both sentences.
I believe this would be true only if the civilian court in question is a foreign one. From the Manual for Courts-Martial, Part V, 1.f(5):
Looking at a legal desk reference guide I have from a class I had, the following criteria must be met for a commander to make such a request:
Criteria: Substantial discredit to the service and one of the following:
i. Impractical probabtion: unsupervised by civilian authorities
ii. Exceptionally light sentence or unjust acquittal
iii. Homosexual case with mild penalties
iv. Interests of justice and discipline
I think you hit the nail on the head. I remember more than once reporting to a training site, and being read a list of actions that would result in a career-ending court-martial (An article 15 is a summary court-martial BTW) … First on the list was DUI, anywhere, anytime, next was passing bad checks, and next they would read a list of bars that were off-limits for “health and safety reasons”, bars that had names like “Lipstix” and “Rainbow Room” and who knows what else. These were considered “special orders”, so I presume this would constitute an Article 92 violation.
No it isn’t. Article 15 is non-judicial punishment, administrative in nature and is normally reserved for minor offenses that would otherwise be handled by a summary court martial.
For any court martial, guilt must be proven ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. With Article 15, only guilt by a preponderance of evidence is required.
Y’all might want to check the Manual for Courts-Martial. There’s a nifty document attached to it. Why, yes, that document really is the Constitution.
There is a guarantee against double-jeopardy. One may not be tried for the same offense twice.
I cited a section of the UCMJ that explicitly says not only can a serviceperson be made to answer for an offense in both jurisdiction but that they may also have to serve both sentences. I’d expect an SDSAB member to try to explain the discrepancy and how it relates do double jeopardy, not to elide the point with a lazy bit of snark.
Am I such a brilliant legal scholar that I’ve discovered a gaping hole in the UCMJ just begging to be challenged and overturned, or is it possible that double jeopardy doesn’t apply here in the way that you think?
§ 814 says nothing about the same offense. In other words, lets say at a court-martial you get 180 days confinement for punching out your CO. Then, halfway through your sentence, the local police finally charge you for an armed robbery you committed before your court-martial. Under § 814, the military can turn you over to the locals for trial, conviction and sentence. Once you finish your sentence, you go back to the brig to complete your 180 days.
The Manual for Courts-Martial is clear about trying someone twice for the same offense. The only possible exception I can see is if the original civil conviction comes from a foreign court.
You all have some valid points. Being retired from the Army and being an MP for my entire career, as well as a civilian cop after Army retireement, here is the deal.
They are the same thing. Think of a military base as a large town or small city. The MP’s are the cops of that jurisdiction, including civilians (this does not include overseas bases since they are subject to Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) with the host country.). In the stateside bases that I served, WA(2 times), CA, HI and CO, all traffic laws including DUI, were cited under whatever the state statutes were. This includes military personnel. On other charges, larceny, assault, etc, Military were charged under the UCMJ and the civilians were cited under state statutes or US Code depending on the nature of the crime. In the case of homocide, civilians were arrested by military authorities and once the initial investigation was completed was turned over to the FBI.
Civilians are prosecuted in a federal court by a federal magistrate. Usually the magistrate will come to the base once or twice a month to conduct court. Iin my personnal experiences the only exception to this was Hawaii. In this case we went downtown to the federal court house. The prosecutor was always a jag lawyer and the sentence handed down on those offenses that were under state statutes were punished under those same state guidlines.,
Somealivet,
What jail facility would a civilian arrested on base be housed in pending bail or trial?
Double jeopardy only applies to the same sovereign entity, so in the case of the US Military (Federal organization), it’s possible for someone subject to the UCMJ to be prosecuted by the military and the state that would have jurisdiction. So for something like murder, the criminal could technically be prosecuted and penalized by both a state court and the military. It rarely happens because it is usually unnecessary and looks bad to the public. The only times it is normally done, is if jurisdiction is initially ceded to the state for a murder or robbery or something off-post that was done by a service member, who then gets off for some reason. The military is allowed to take back jurisdiction and prosecute the person in a court martial.
For the OP, one big difference is MPs can be 18 years old and brand new Soldiers, where most police are a minimum of 21. So sometimes the maturity level isn’t quite there. Civilian police tend to have more knowledge and practice in day to day law enforcement procedures also, while MPs spend time qualifying on combat skills and weapons. Not many civilian police agencies have .50 caliber machine guns and full auto grenade launchers.
Wow. . . it’s been damn near five years since I posted in this thread. I’ll just say I’ve learned a lot in those five years, and not on the wrong end of the law.
Tripler
Nope. I plead the 5th. 
I’m curious about one issue which MPs might have do deal with that hardly exists in the civilian world – the hierarchy of power as designated by rank. I imagine that if a civilian cop wants to arrest a military person, the cop doesn’t particularly care if it’s a private or a general. From the cop’s point of view they’re the same.
Can an MP private arrest a general? Are there certain perks of rank which would make the arrest and processing of officers different or more difficult than enlisted personnel?
Hmmm, didn’t notice it was a zombie… Well, whatever, if anyone can answer my question, that would be nice.
Nope. Ain’t no privilege for arrestees. If it gets to that point, the cuffs are going on and they’re getting booked. They might physically handle an elderly flag officer arrested for DUI a little more gently than a young Airman First Class in a fistfight, but legally, all of the procedures will be the same.
I’m acquainted with an Air Force OSI agent who’s had a few stories. He busted a Captain for dealing dope (while the agent is Enlisted). He later had to investigate a Lt Col for some sexual shenanigans.
Tripler
Rank doesn’t matter if you’re under investigation.