U.S. v. Walker, 76-1736

Decision Date19 May 1977
Docket NumberNo. 76-1736,76-1736
Citation552 F.2d 566
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. John B. WALKER, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Ralph E. Murray, Alexandria, Va., for appellant.

Robert F. McDermott, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Alexandria, Va. (William B. Cummings, U. S. Atty., Alexandria, Va., on brief), for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BUTZNER and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.

RUSSELL, Circuit Judge:

The defendant, a member of the armed forces stationed at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, appeals his conviction for drunken driving within the Fort Belvoir Military Reservation. His conviction was based upon § 18.2-266 of the Virginia Code, as made applicable to federal installations under the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13. He contends that Article 111 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. § 911) gives the military jurisdiction to punish a member of the armed forces for drunken driving on a military installation and that such jurisdiction in the military precludes any jurisdiction in the United States District Court to prosecute a member of the armed services for such an offense.

The argument of the defendant overlooks the fact that under § 3231, 18 U.S.C. 1 federal courts have at the very least concurrent jurisdiction with military courts over violations of the laws of the United States by military personnel whether on or off the military reservation. Grafton v. United States (1907) 206 U.S. 333, 348, 27 S.Ct. 749, 51 L.Ed. 1084; Peek v. United States (9th Cir. 1963) 321 F.2d 934, 936, cert. denied376 U.S. 954, 84 S.Ct. 973, 11 L.Ed.2d 973. Consequently simply because a member of the armed forces may be punished by military court martial for an offense provides no justification for concluding that a District Court lacks jurisdiction to punish him for the same offense, if such offense is violative of a federal law. 2

The validity of the defendant's prosecution in the District Court for the crime of drunk driving on a federal installation does not, therefore, turn on whether the defendant might have been punished under military law but on whether there is a federal law covering the offense of drunk driving on the military reservation of Fort Belvoir, Virginia. That there is such a federal law seems plain.

§ 13, 18 U.S.C. known as the Assimilative Crimes Act, declares:

"Whoever within or upon any of the places now existing or hereafter reserved or acquired as provided in section 7 of this title, is guilty of any act or omission which, although not made punishable by any enactment of Congress, would be punishable if committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of the State, Territory, Possession, or District in which such place is situated, by the laws thereof in force at the time of such act or omission, shall be guilty of a like offense and subject to a like punishment."

There is no express "enactment of Congress" providing punishment for drunk driving in a federal enclave. 3 Whether there can be federal jurisdiction to punish for such offense, then is to be determined by whether the State of Virginia wherein Fort Belvoir is located has a law dealing with the offense of drunk driving. If it does, then, under the terms of the Assimilative Crimes Act, that state law becomes federal law for the offense of drunk driving committed within the federal enclave of Fort Belvoir. Admittedly, the State of Virginia, within which Fort Belvoir is located, has a statute covering the offense of drunk driving and that statute is made federal law by the Assimilative Crimes Act for the offense of drunk driving by anyone, be he civilian or military, on the military reservation of Fort Belvoir. The District Court thus had jurisdiction to try the defendant under that statute.

Accordingly, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • United States v. Williams, Criminal Case No. 3:17mj84
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • September 18, 2017
    ...... United States v . Walker , 552 F.2d 566, 567 (4th Cir.), cert . denied , 434 U.S. 848 (1977) (citing cases); Mariea , 795 ......
  • U.S. v. Talbot, 86-5541
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • July 31, 1987
    ...v. Mariea, 795 F.2d 1094, 1101 (1st Cir.1986); United States v. Colon-Padilla, 770 F.2d 1328, 1330-32 (5th Cir.1985); United States v. Walker, 552 F.2d 566, 567 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 848, 98 S.Ct. 157, 54 L.Ed.2d 116 (1977). See also R.C.M. 201 (courts-martial jurisdiction). 3 ......
  • U.S. v. Mariea, s. 85-1770
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • June 27, 1986
    ...UCMJ which covers only military personnel. The only other circuit to face this issue has reached a similar conclusion, United States v. Walker, 552 F.2d 566 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 848, 98 S.Ct. 157, 54 L.Ed.2d 116 (1977), as have two district courts, Fulkerson, 631 F.Supp. 319; ......
  • Coggins v. Carpenter
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • March 22, 1979
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • OPTIMIZING MILITARY INSTALLATION JURISDICTION.
    • United States
    • Air Force Law Review No. 81, March 2020
    • March 22, 2020
    ...(2020). [125] Id. [126] See infra note 127. [127] United States v. Mariea, 795 F.2d 1094, 1096-9 (1st Cir. 1986); United States v. Walker, 552 F.2d 566, 568 (4th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 848 (1977); United States v. Debevoise, 799 F.2d 1401, 1402-3 (9th Cir. [128] Id. (Mariea, Wal......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT