Federal Criminal Law and Procedure
Federal Criminal Law and Procedure
This domain tests substantive federal offenses and the procedural limits on investigation, search, seizure, arrest, and prosecution. AFOSI cases may involve UCMJ offenses, federal statutes, or both; the exam expects you to identify the right legal framework and preserve rights.
Core rules
- Military status matters. UCMJ jurisdiction can reach active-duty members for offenses such as Article 107 (false official statement), Article 121 (larceny), and Article 120 (sexual assault). Federal statutes can apply to civilians, contractors, and service members, including 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements), § 641 (theft of government property), § 1343 (wire fraud), and § 201 (bribery).
- Fourth Amendment: searches and seizures need a warrant, military search authorization, consent, or a recognized exception. Probable cause is required; scope must match the authority granted.
- Fifth Amendment: custodial interrogation requires Miranda warnings and a valid waiver. Voluntariness is separate; threats, promises, or coercion can suppress statements.
- Sixth Amendment: once formal proceedings begin, counsel attaches for critical stages. Brady and Giglio require disclosure of exculpatory and impeachment information.
- Preserve evidence and document the legal basis; violations can lead to suppression.
Worked example
A contractor lies to an AFOSI agent about signing a receiving report for undelivered goods. The agent has documentary proof and a voluntary noncustodial statement. Charging under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 requires a knowingly and willfully made material false statement in a matter within federal jurisdiction. If the person was a service member making the statement in an official capacity, Article 107 may also be considered. Reasoning: identify status, statement, materiality, jurisdiction, and voluntariness before choosing the charge.
Traps
Treating a UCMJ violation and a federal offense as interchangeable; interviewing a suspect in custody without Miranda; confusing consent to talk with consent to search; and overlooking disclosure obligations.