Table Content
Article 116 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice addresses participation in a riot or breach of the peace involving collective violence. The provision criminalizes group conduct that threatens public order or military discipline. It focuses on acts of violence committed by multiple persons rather than isolated individual misconduct.
A “riot” under Article 116 involves an assemblage of three or more persons engaged in violent or turbulent conduct that creates a clear threat to good order and discipline. The offense covers active participation in the group’s violent actions, as well as conduct that substantially contributes to the group’s unlawful use of force or destruction of property. Mere presence at the scene is insufficient unless accompanied by conduct that signals joining or supporting the riot.
Key elements include:
Any servicemember subject to the UCMJ may be charged under Article 116. The article applies in both deployed and non-deployed settings, including military installations and off_base locations where the UCMJ remains applicable. Civilians may face related federal charges but are not subject to Article 116 unless otherwise brought under military jurisdiction by statute.
The offense generally requires that the accused knowingly participated in the riotous conduct or acted with awareness of the group’s violent activities. Specific intent to achieve a particular result is not required. Negligent or accidental presence does not satisfy the mental state element.
Attempt liability is uncommon because a riot requires collective action already in progress. Conspiracy may apply if two or more persons agree to engage in riotous activity and take an overt act toward that goal. Accomplice liability may attach to those who aid, encourage, or facilitate the group’s violence, even if they do not personally commit overt acts of force.
The government must prove each element of the offense of riot under Article 116 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice beyond a reasonable doubt before a conviction may be sustained.
The mens rea for riot requires that the accused acted knowingly in joining or continuing in the collective disturbance. The government must show that the participation was conscious and voluntary, rather than accidental or inadvertent.
The actus reus consists of taking part in a riot, defined as a gathering of three or more persons engaged in a violent and turbulent disruption of public order. Participation can include acts that contribute to the violent nature of the disturbance or presence with the group in a manner that encourages or furthers the riotous conduct.
Critical statutory terms include “riot,” which encompasses both the collective nature of the group and the violent character of the disturbance. The phrase “disturbance of the peace” refers to conduct that disrupts public order or tranquility, and “wrongfully” means without legal justification or authorization. These definitions guide the factfinder in determining whether the conduct meets the threshold required under Article 116.
Punishment for violations of Article 116, UCMJ (Riot), depends on the date the offense was committed. Offenses committed before December 27, 2023 fall under the traditional maximum_punishment model. Offenses committed on or after that date are sentenced under the updated sentencing_category framework implemented by the Military Justice Act amendments.
For Article 116 (Riot), the Manual for Courts_Martial authorized the following maximum punishments under the pre_December 27, 2023 system:
For offenses occurring on or after December 27, 2023, Article 116 is assigned to Sentencing Category 3 under the revised system.
Under the sentencing_category model, each offense is placed into a predefined category that establishes an authorized confinement range. Judges and panels sentence within that range rather than relying on a single maximum_punishment ceiling. This differs from the prior system, in which each offense carried an individual maximum sentence and the sentencing authority had broad discretion from zero up to that maximum. The updated framework provides structured sentencing bands while retaining judicial discretion within those limits.
Charging decisions under Article 116 are generally shaped by the underlying facts, the scope of the disturbance, and the command’s assessment of good order and discipline. Investigators and commanders focus on whether a group action escalated beyond disorderly conduct into collective violence or threats of violence that disrupted military operations or the surrounding community.
Article 116 is most often charged when a group confrontation evolves into property damage, intimidation, or physical altercations involving multiple service members. Typical situations include off_base incidents near bars or entertainment districts where a dispute grows into a crowd-led fight, or on-base barracks disturbances involving groups acting together in a threatening or violent manner. Commands may also turn to Article 116 when a formation, liberty group, or deployed element engages in coordinated misconduct that overwhelms normal disciplinary channels. The focus is usually on collective behavior rather than a single individual’s actions, especially when the event attracts law-enforcement attention or disrupts unit readiness.
Investigations typically begin with a commander’s initial inquiry after receiving reports of a multi-person disturbance. If the event involves significant violence, injuries, or off-base civilian involvement, it is commonly referred to CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS depending on the service branch. These agencies gather witness statements, secure video evidence from security cameras or civilian authorities, and map out each participant’s role. Command-directed investigations or AR 15_6 inquiries may run concurrently to assess broader unit issues. Coordination with local civilian law enforcement is routine when the event occurs off installation.
Prosecutors frequently charge Article 116 alongside overlapping articles to account for multiple theories of liability, especially when individual and group actions intertwine. Charge-stacking may occur to reflect both collective misconduct and separate individual acts within the same incident. Overlap with disorderly conduct, assault, and general misconduct articles is common, allowing fact-finders to determine the most appropriate offense based on the evidence developed during the investigation.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 116, which addresses riot and breach of peace offenses, often hinge on the government’s ability to satisfy each statutory element with admissible and credible evidence. Litigation commonly focuses on the interpretation of specific terms, the reliability of witness accounts, the admissibility of investigative materials, and the scope of the statute as applied to the charged conduct. These cases frequently turn on nuanced factual and legal disputes rather than broad categorical defenses.
Contested issues frequently arise over whether the government has established all elements of a riot, including the presence of multiple participants, a common intent to engage in tumultuous or violent conduct, and conduct that actually results in disturbance or danger. Disputes often concern:
These challenges typically involve examining the quality, consistency, and sufficiency of the government’s proof rather than contesting the validity of the statute.
Mens rea questions arise because Article 116 requires proof that the accused knowingly or intentionally participated in or contributed to riotous conduct. Contested issues may include whether the accused:
Because group behavior can be fluid and rapidly evolving, litigation often examines the timing of intent formation and the accused’s understanding of the collective activity.
Riot-related cases often depend heavily on eyewitness testimony from service members, law enforcement personnel, or bystanders. Credibility questions may arise from inconsistent accounts, limited visibility, stress conditions, or conflicting recollections among participants. Investigators’ interpretations of video or audio evidence may also be contested, particularly when multiple individuals are present and individual actions are difficult to distinguish.
Common evidentiary disputes include the admissibility of statements made during mass-arrest situations, the reliability of digital recordings, and the scope of searches conducted during crowd-control operations. Suppression issues may arise when identifying information or statements are obtained during rapidly unfolding events where compliance with procedural safeguards is scrutinized. These disputes often affect how clearly individual roles within the alleged riot can be established.
Ambiguities in terminology such as “riot,” “tumultuous conduct,” or “common intent” may generate litigation, particularly where definitions overlap with other UCMJ provisions. Questions may also arise regarding the degree of participation required to be deemed part of a riot, or how cross-references to military customs and regulations inform the scope of prohibited conduct.
Understanding broader disorderly conduct offenses under Article 134
How communicating threats can relate to riot-related misconduct
Provoking speeches and gestures often linked to group disturbances
Mutiny and sedition as severe forms of collective disobedience
Drunk and disorderly behavior commonly co-occurring in riot cases
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that may arise from a conviction independently of any sentence imposed by a court_martial. These consequences can affect a service member’s military career, post-service opportunities, and certain legal or regulatory obligations, depending on the circumstances of the offense and applicable policies.
A conviction under UCMJ Article 116, Riot, may lead to administrative actions separate from judicial punishment. These actions can include:
A riot conviction may raise concerns related to judgment, reliability, and allegiance, which are factors considered in security clearance determinations. This may affect eligibility to obtain, retain, or renew a clearance and could restrict assignments requiring access to classified information. Post-service employment in fields that depend on security clearance eligibility may also be affected.
Article 116 offenses do not generally trigger sex offender registration. However, certain riot-related conduct could involve other offenses that may carry independent reporting requirements. Registration obligations are determined by federal and state laws, and not by the UCMJ alone.
The same conduct underlying a military riot conviction may expose an individual to federal or state criminal prosecution or civil liability if local laws were violated or property damage or injuries resulted.
For non-citizens, certain convictions may carry immigration implications, such as effects on admissibility or naturalization eligibility. These outcomes depend on federal immigration law and the specific facts of the case.
During the initial phase of a UCMJ Article 116 investigation, decisions are made that can influence the direction and outcome of the case well before any charges are preferred. Actions such as providing statements, responding to inquiries, or consenting to searches often occur quickly, making timely legal guidance important to ensure the process proceeds accurately and fairly.
Military investigations typically begin with rapid evidence collection, including witness statements, digital records, and physical documentation. Early legal involvement can help ensure that the context of statements is accurately captured and that the handling of documents or electronic data is properly preserved. A lawyer’s review may also help identify whether investigative steps follow required procedures.
Command and law-enforcement interviews sometimes occur before a service member fully understands the allegations or how their statements may be used. Without legal guidance, a person may unintentionally provide information that is incomplete, unclear, or subject to misinterpretation. Consulting with defense counsel, including a civilian military defense lawyer when appropriate, helps clarify rights and the scope of questioning.
Administrative or command-directed investigations can proceed even when criminal charges have not been initiated. Early decisions in these processes, such as written responses or participation in inquiries, often become part of the record and may influence later disciplinary or administrative actions.
Choices made at the start of an investigation—statements, consent to searches, or responses to administrative requests—can carry forward into court-martial proceedings or other actions. These early steps may shape how facts are interpreted and how subsequent decisions are made throughout the case.
Gonzalez & Waddington is a civilian military defense law firm that represents service members worldwide in cases arising under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The firm focuses on defending clients in complex military criminal matters, including allegations under UCMJ Article 116, Riot. With extensive experience navigating the military justice system, the firm provides informed counsel and defense services tailored to the unique demands of courts-martial and related military proceedings.
If you or someone you know is facing an allegation involving UCMJ Article 116, Riot, Gonzalez & Waddington is available to review the situation and discuss potential defense options. To learn more about the services offered or to request a consultation, you may contact the firm for further information.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 116: Riot cover?
A: Article 116 addresses situations in which service members participate in a riot or engage in violent or tumultuous conduct with a group that creates a clear danger to public order. The article applies when there is collective action that goes beyond mere disorder and involves force, threats of force, or disruptive behavior capable of causing injury or property damage. It focuses on group participation rather than isolated individual misconduct.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 116: Riot?
A: The maximum punishment may include confinement, forfeiture of pay, reduction in rank, and a punitive discharge. The specific punishment depends on the circumstances, such as the level of violence, the number of participants, and any resulting injuries or damage. Commanders and courts consider the service member’s role in the riot when determining the appropriate sentence. Each case is evaluated on individual facts rather than a predetermined outcome.
Q: Can an allegation under this article lead to administrative separation even without a conviction?
A: Yes. A command may initiate administrative separation based solely on substantiated misconduct or a pattern of behavior, even if no court-martial conviction occurs. Administrative actions use a lower evidentiary threshold and are focused on suitability for continued service. The decision can consider witness statements, investigative findings, or other relevant information. Separation outcomes vary depending on service policies, the seriousness of the alleged conduct, and the member’s overall record.
Q: Do I need a civilian military defense lawyer for an investigation under this article?
A: Whether to hire a civilian military defense lawyer is a personal choice. Service members are entitled to military defense counsel at no cost, but some choose to retain civilian counsel for additional support or specialized experience. Civilian counsel can offer guidance during interviews, responses to investigators, and command interactions. The decision generally depends on the complexity of the case, potential consequences, and the member’s preference for representation.
Q: Can this be handled without a court-martial, such as through administrative action or nonjudicial punishment?
A: Yes. Allegations under Article 116 may be addressed through nonjudicial punishment or administrative measures when the command determines the conduct does not require full judicial action. These processes may involve corrective actions, reprimands, or administrative separation. Commands consider the severity of the incident, evidence strength, and the service member’s history. Not every allegation results in a court-martial, and commanders select the forum they believe is most appropriate.
Q: Which investigative agencies typically handle potential riot-related misconduct?
A: Investigations may be conducted by military law enforcement agencies such as CID, NCIS, or OSI, depending on the branch of service. These agencies gather witness statements, video evidence, and other relevant materials to determine whether a riot occurred and whether specific individuals participated. Commands may also conduct parallel inquiries. The scope of the investigation depends on the size of the incident, potential injuries, and any property damage involved.
Q: What types of evidence are commonly used to support or refute an Article 116 allegation?
A: Investigators and commanders may review video recordings, photographs, electronic communications, witness interviews, and physical evidence from the scene. They assess whether the service member actively participated in group violence or disorder and whether their actions contributed to the disturbance. Evidence is evaluated for accuracy, credibility, and consistency. Both direct and circumstantial evidence may be considered when determining whether the conduct meets the elements of a riot.
To better understand the Articles of the UCMJ and how military law works in practice, you can review the UCMJ and related authorities here: UCMJ Articles and Military Justice Resources. For additional official guidance, visit the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps website at jag.navy.mil.
A renowned military criminal defense attorney and best-selling author, Michael Waddington defends clients worldwide in serious cases and trains lawyers in advanced cross-examination. He is frequently featured by major media outlets like CNN and 60 Minutes.
Alexandra González-Waddington is a top military and civilian defense attorney who has handled high-profile sexual assault, violent crime, and war-crimes cases globally. Her work is widely recognized by media outlets including 60 Minutes and ABC’s Nightline.
