United States of America v. Geneva Red Feather et al.
392 F. Supp. 916 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385) prohibits the direct, active use of federal military personnel in civilian law enforcement activities, but it does not prohibit the use of military equipment, supplies, or materiel, nor does it prohibit the passive involvement of military personnel in roles such as advising, observation, or logistical support.
Facts:
- In 1973, an occupation of Wounded Knee, South Dakota occurred, which the government characterized as a civil disorder.
- Federal law enforcement officers, including United States marshals and agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, were deployed to the site.
- During the occupation, these federal civil law enforcement officers used materiel and equipment furnished by the United States Army and the National Guard.
- United States Army personnel were present at Wounded Knee to observe the situation, report to the Department of Defense, and draft contingency plans.
- These military personnel also provided advice and counsel to Department of Justice personnel on the subjects of negotiations, logistics, and rules of engagement.
- The United States Air Force and the Nebraska National Guard provided aerial photographic reconnaissance services.
- Following the occupation, several individuals were indicted for obstructing law enforcement officers during the civil disorder.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendants were charged by indictment in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota with violating 18 U.S.C. § 231(a)(3) for actions during the 1973 Wounded Knee occupation.
- Prior to trial, the United States filed a Motion in Limine, asking the court to issue a pre-trial order prohibiting the defendants from introducing any evidence regarding the involvement of the Department of Defense in the law enforcement operation.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385) prohibit the use of military equipment, supplies, or personnel in passive, advisory roles by civilian law enforcement, thereby making evidence of such use admissible to prove that officers were not 'lawfully engaged' in their duties under 18 U.S.C. § 231(a)(3)?
Opinions:
Majority - Bogue, District Judge
No. The Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385) is violated only by the direct and active use of military personnel to execute civilian laws, not by the passive use of military personnel or the use of military equipment. Based on its legislative history, the Act was intended to prohibit federal troops from performing direct law enforcement functions, such as policing state elections. It was not intended to prevent inter-departmental sharing of resources, equipment, or advice, which is authorized by other statutes like the Economy Act. Therefore, evidence of military equipment use or passive military involvement is irrelevant and inadmissible to prove that federal law enforcement officers were acting unlawfully.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the Posse Comitatus Act by establishing a critical distinction between active and passive military involvement in civilian law enforcement. By ruling that the use of military equipment and advisory support does not violate the Act, the court narrows the grounds on which a law enforcement operation can be challenged as unlawful. This precedent limits the 'unlawful engagement' defense in cases arising from civil disorders where military assistance was provided, focusing the inquiry solely on whether military personnel were used to directly perform law enforcement tasks like arrests or searches, rather than merely supporting the civilian authorities.
