Exceptions

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

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