Prosecutions brought under the Dyer Act should normally be instituted in the district into which the stolen motor vehicle was last brought. However, in regard to ring cases the prosecution, in accordance with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3237, may be initiated in the judicial district in which the motor vehicle was stolen, transported through, or last brought depending upon the facts of the case. In ring cases, the United States Attorney exercising jurisdiction should contact the other United States Attorneys who might have jurisdiction and advise them of his or her action.
With reference to individuals involved in non-ring cases who by definition are considered to be recidivists (see JM 9-61.113), if the theft occurred in the place of the residence of a recidivist and local authorities in both the place of apprehension and the place of theft will not institute local charges, Federal proceedings, if any, should be instituted at the place of the theft. Before instituting any prosecution of any such recidivist (i.e., non-ring participant), an effort must be made to persuade local authorities in both the jurisdiction of the theft and apprehension to institute local prosecution. In connection with such effort, local authorities should be notified of the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 5001 (see this Manual at 1312), which authorizes the return of youthful motor vehicle theft offenders to the place where the offense was committed at Federal expense when certain conditions have been met.
Prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 2313 (receiving, possessing, concealing, selling, etc.) can be instituted only in the district in which those violations occur.
[updated May 1999] [cited in JM 9-61.100]