Assimilative Crimes Act

Lewis v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 1135 (1998)

The ACA applies when a person is guilty of an act or omission on a federal conclave which is not made a crime by any enactment of Congress, but is made a crime by the state in which the enclave is located. The purpose of the ACA is to “fill in any gaps” where there is no federal criminal law governing conduct on a federal enclave. To determine whether a particular state statute is assimilated, a court must first ask the question, “Is the defendant’s act or omission made punishable by any enactment of Congress?” If the answer is “no,” then the state law is assimilated. If the answer is “yes,” the court must ask the further question of whether the federal statutes that apply to the act or omission reveal a legislative intent to preclude application of the state law in question because the federal statutes reveal an intent to “occupy so much of a field” as would exclude use of the particular state statute. Thus, where, as here, a soldier kills a child on an army base, 18 U.S.C. §1111, which outlaws second-degree murder on a federal enclave, controls, rather than the state’s first-degree murder provision.

United States v. Davenport, 131 F.3d 604 (7th Cir. 1997)

Wisconsin's DUI statute, for first offenders, does not constitute a "crime" under Wisconsin law; for a first offense, only civil penalties are available. The Assimilative Crimes Act only assimilates a state's criminal law. Therefore, a defendant's first DUI offense on federal property cannot be prosecuted under the state law. Also, drunk driving on a military base is punishable under federal regulations, 32 C.F.R. § 634.25(f), where the offense occurs in a state, like Wisconsin, where the first DUI is considered a civil matter.

United States v. Sylve, 135 F.3d 680 (9th Cir. 1998)

The State of Washington provides for "deferred prosecution" in the case of first time DUI offenders. The Ninth Circuit concluded that this is a form of punishment that is incorporated into federal law through the Assimilative Crimes Act.

United States v. Harris, 27 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 1994)

The North Carolina statute which provides for a maximum sentence of 24 hours for a DUI under certain conditions must be followed by a federal court exercising jurisdiction under the Assimilative Crimes Act, notwithstanding the Sentencing Guidelines.

United States v. King, 824 F.2d 313 (4th Cir. 1987)

The defendants were convicted under the Assimilative Crimes Act for a crime committed on federal land. A special assessment for a victim’s assistance fund was imposed. The Fourth Circuit holds that no such assessment may be imposed unless a similar penalty was available under the state law being applied.

United States v. Palmer, 956 F.2d 189 (9th Cir. 1991)

36 C.F.R. §4.23 outlaws DUI in a national park. The government may not proceed on a more strict state law under the Assimilative Crimes Act.

United States v. Garcia, 893 F.2d 250 (10th Cir. 1989)

The Sentencing Guidelines apply to violations of the Assimilative Crimes Act, but the sentence imposed must be within the penalty range authorized by the applicable state law.