Limited Criminal Jurisdiction Over Property Held
Although it has been continually emphasized in the preceding
that the United States may not exercise criminal jurisdiction over property
it holds only in a proprietorial capacity, it would be more accurate to
that the United States is not wholly without the power to protect its
and control its use. State jurisdiction "does not take from Congress the
to control their occupancy and use, to protect them from trespass and injury
to prescribe the conditions upon which others may obtain rights in them,
though this may involve the exercise in some measure of what is commonly
as the police power." See Utah Power & Light Co. v. United
243 U.S. 389, 405 (1917) (finding constitutional authority in the Property
Clause, Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 1).|
There are a number of specific statutes that are applicable
independently of 18 U.S.C. 7(3) and the acquisition of legislative
Included among these statutes is 18 U.S.C. § 1382 (entering military,
or Coast Guard property). See United States v. Holmes, 414 F.
Supp. 831, 837 n. 9 (D.Md. 1976)(finding constitutional authority for 18
§ 1382 in the Property Clause and/or the military power clauses,
I, Sec. 8, cls. 12 and 14, aided by the Necessary and Proper Clause, Art. I,
8, cl. 18).
On occasion, courts have upheld convictions for trespass and minor
police offenses that violated regulations made criminal by statute when the
offenses were committed on land and facilities held proprietorially finding
authority to punish the offense in the Property Clause and/or in the
constitutional provision authorizing the performance of the function.
e.g., United States v. Seward, 687 F.2d 1270, 1277 (10th Cir.
cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1147 (1983) (conviction for trespass on NRC
facility upheld on basis of Property Clause); United States v.
580 F.2d 156 (5th Cir. 1978) (conviction of traffic offenses on postal
upheld on basis of Property Clause and/or postal power, Art. 1, Sec. 8, cl.
aided by the Necessary and Proper Clause).
[cited in USAM 9-20.100]