Examples of actions that further a "military purpose" are listed in AR 500-
51, paragraph 3-4(a), and include the following: "(1) actions related to
enforcement of the Uniform Code of Military Justice; (2) actions likely to result
in administrative proceedings by DOD, regardless of related civil or criminal
proceedings; (3) actions related to the commander's inherent authority to maintain
law and order on a military installation or facility; (4) protection of classified
military information or equipment; (5) protection of DOD personnel, DOD equipment,
and official guests of DOD; (and)(6) other actions that are undertaken primarily
for military or foreign affairs purposes."
AR 195-2, paragraph 3-1(b), similarly explains that CID's investigative
jurisdiction is limited to matters in which there is an "Army Interest." Examples
of this are: "(1) the crime is committed on a military installation or facility;
(2) there is a reasonable basis to believe that a suspect may be subject to the
UCMJ; (3) there is a reasonable basis to believe that a suspect may be a civilian
employee of DOD who has committed an offense in connection with his or her assigned
duties; (4) the Army is the victim of the crime; e.g., the offense involves the
loss or destruction of government property or allegations of fraud...relating to
Army programs or personnel; (and)(5) there is a need to protect personnel,
property, or activities on Army installations from criminal conduct on military
installations that has a direct adverse effect on the Army's ability to accomplish
its
mission;
e.g.,
the
introduction
of
controlled
substances
onto
Army
installations."
After Solorio, the Army may be investigating more off-post incidents.
The
civil authorities, of course, may also be investigating them, due to their
concurrent jurisdiction to both investigate and prosecute.
In such cases,
"investigative responsibility will be determined in coordination with that
authority.
When concurrent jurisdiction or authority to investigate exists and
neither the Army nor the civil authorities accede to the other's primary
responsibility to investigate, both may pursue the investigation in fulfillment of
their respective interests, with neither impeding the other." (AR 195-2, paragraph
3-2a.) Overseas, of course, the off-post investigation must not be prohibited by a
SOFA or other host nation law. If there is no applicable local agreement, off-post
investigations will still require "coordination with appropriate host country
authorities." (AR 195-2, paragraph 3-2b.) In this regard, TJAG policy Memorandum
87-5 (28 Jul 87) states that military jurisdiction over off-post offenses "will, by
necessity, require greater coordination with civilian law enforcement agencies and
prosecutors...staff and command judge advocates should review any...MOU in effect
with local, state, and federal prosecutors and law enforcement officials in light
of Solorio...Solorio should be discussed with these officials as soon as possible
and plans made for coordination on further cases."
Also, remember that the authority to investigate off-post offenses does not
confer the authority to apprehend civilians off post, or to execute civilian search
warrants. As we saw earlier, these situations require coordination with the civil
authorities (AR 195-2, paragraph 3-21c.)
1-39
MP1018
Previous Page
