Article 97 UCMJ – Unlawful Detention – Military Defense Lawyers

UCMJ Military Defense Guide by Gonzalez & Waddington

Article 97 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes unlawful detention, which occurs when a service member wrongfully restrains, confines, or detains another person without lawful authority. Although rarely discussed compared to assault or false official statement charges, Article 97 is frequently misapplied in real-world military cases—especially in emotionally charged situations, domestic disputes, barracks altercations, or poorly supervised training environments.

The government often uses Article 97 as a “catch-all” charge when they cannot prove kidnapping, assault, or unlawful restraint under Article 128. Unfortunately, this leads to overcharging and misinterpretation, especially when the accused had no criminal intent and circumstances were chaotic, misunderstood, or emotionally driven.

Florida’s military installations—including NAS Jacksonville, Mayport, Pensacola, Whiting Field, Eglin, Hurlburt Field, Tyndall, Patrick Space Force Base, MacDill AFB, NSA Panama City, and NAS Key West—see a disproportionate number of Article 97 allegations due to off-base bar incidents, domestic disturbances, crowded barracks, and confusion during law enforcement encounters.

Gonzalez & Waddington aggressively defends service members accused of unlawful detention by exposing exaggeration, misinterpretation, lack of authority issues, emotional context, and command overreach. These cases often collapse once the full facts—not the accusation—are brought to light.

➤ Speak With an Article 97 Military Defense Lawyer

What Article 97 UCMJ Criminalizes

Under Article 97, a service member commits unlawful detention by:

• Arresting someone without authority
• Confining someone without authority
• Detaining someone without authority
• Failing to release someone when legally required
• Exceeding lawful limits of detention

The focus is on whether the accused had lawful authority and whether the detention was wrongful. Commands, law enforcement, and witnesses often incorrectly assume “wrongful detention” whenever conflict arises, even when no crime occurred.

Common Examples of Alleged Article 97 Violations

• Holding someone in a room during an argument
• Blocking a door during a fight or domestic issue
• “Guarding” a drunk friend but being accused of confining them
• Restraining a person until help arrives
• Stopping someone from leaving a dangerous situation
• Interfering with the movement of a junior service member
• Misusing rank or authority to prevent someone from leaving
• Barracks roommate disputes involving physical boundaries
• Attempting to detain a suspect without proper MP authority

In many of these situations, the accused acted out of confusion, fear, concern for safety, or split-second judgment—not criminal intent.

Elements the Government Must Prove

To convict a service member under Article 97, prosecutors must prove:

1. The Accused Arrested, Confined, or Detained Someone

The detention must involve restricting the victim’s movement in a meaningful way.

2. The Detention Was “Wrongful”

This is the most disputed element—detention may be justified based on safety, self-defense, mental health concerns, or misunderstanding.

3. The Accused Had No Lawful Authority

The UCMJ recognizes lawful apprehension by:

• MPs / Security Forces
• Supervisors acting under specific authority
• Implied authority during emergencies

4. The Conduct Was Prejudicial or Service-Discrediting

The government must show the action harmed discipline—not just offended someone.

What Article 97 Is NOT

The following do NOT automatically constitute unlawful detention:

• Stopping someone briefly during an argument
• Blocking a door accidentally
• Momentarily using hands to de-escalate a fight
• Physically restraining a violent or intoxicated person for safety
• Holding someone to prevent self-harm
• A roommate blocking access unintentionally during a dispute
• “Standing in someone’s way” without intent to detain
• A misunderstanding during police or command investigations

Article 97 is frequently overcharged when simple arguments or safety interventions get misinterpreted.

Why Article 97 Cases Are Often Weak

These charges are notoriously fragile because they require proof of:

• Intent to unlawfully detain
• Lack of authority
• Wrongfulness
• Actual detention

Defense angles that often defeat Article 97 charges:

• The accused had implicit authority based on rank or situation
• Detention was for safety or de-escalation
• There was no real restriction of movement
• The alleged victim is exaggerating
• Witnesses contradict the accuser
• The situation was chaotic or confusing
• The accused acted in self-defense

Most Article 97 cases collapse once cross-examination exposes the truth.

Why Article 97 Allegations are Common in Florida

Florida’s military community creates unique conditions for unlawful detention accusations:

• High alcohol consumption near bases (Jacksonville Beach, Ybor, Pensacola)
• Domestic disputes often escalated by alcohol or stress
• Barracks conflicts in tight living quarters
• Civilian police unfamiliar with military dynamics
• High operational tempo causing stress and short tempers
• Youthful service members with limited conflict-resolution training
• Frequent roommate disagreements
• Nightlife chaos near bases misinterpreting physical interactions

Many cases begin with 911 calls, restricted reporting, or neighbors calling police after overhearing loud arguments.

Real World Florida Article 97 Scenarios

1. Domestic Dispute in On-Base Housing

A spouse alleges being “held against their will” when the accused was attempting to calm them or prevent self-harm.

2. Barracks Argument Escalates

Two roommates argue, one blocks the doorway briefly, later reported as unlawful detention.

3. Attempting to Detain an Intruder or Aggressor

A service member restrains someone for safety and is wrongly accused of unlawful detention.

4. Stopping a Drunk Friend from Driving

Well-intentioned restraint misinterpreted as detention.

5. Disputes During Nightlife Incidents

Slight physical blocking at a club or outside a bar becomes “preventing movement.”

6. Recruiter or NCO Trying to Control a Rowdy Trainee

Necessary control actions reframed as abusive or unlawful detention.

7. False Allegations During Breakups

Accusers report being “trapped in a room,” though doors were never locked and movement was not restricted.

8. Security Forces Miscommunication

Misdirected commands during apprehension create confusion interpreted as “resisting” or “detaining.”

How Article 97 Investigations Work

Investigations typically involve:

• NCIS, CID, OSI, or CGIS
• Civilian police reports (frequent in Florida)
• Witness statements
• 911 audio
• Bodycam and surveillance footage
• Medical or forensic documentation

Common Investigative Failures

• Investigators assume guilt based solely on the accuser’s statement
• Failure to interview neighbors, roommates, or witnesses
• Ignoring self-defense or safety-based explanations
• No proof that movement was actually restricted
• Emotional or intoxicated reports treated as fact
• Commands pushing charges due to political sensitivity

Defense Strategies for Article 97 Cases

1. Lack of Intent

Detention must be purposeful and wrongful; accidental or chaotic situations defeat the element.

2. No Real Detention Occurred

The government must show the accused actually prevented movement.

3. Authority or Privilege

Supervisory, safety, or emergency authority can justify restraint.

4. Self-Defense / Defense of Another

Restraining someone who is violent or intoxicated is lawful.

5. Florida-Specific Defense Angles

• Nightlife situations with conflicting accounts
• Alcohol-influenced misunderstandings
• Small rooms and corridors creating incidental blocking
• Busy on-base housing with high emotional intensity

6. Attack Credibility of the Accuser

Exaggeration, drunkenness, memory gaps, and motive to lie often undermine the allegation.

7. Digital Forensics

Calls, texts, and timing reconstruction frequently exonerate service members.

Potential Punishments for Article 97

Depending on severity, possible punishments include:

• Confinement
• Reduction to E-1
• Total forfeitures
• Bad conduct or dishonorable discharge
• Loss of clearance and duty qualifications

However, many Article 97 cases are resolved at NJP or administratively when aggressively defended.

Pro Tips for Anyone Accused of Article 97

• Do NOT give statements to investigators.
• Do NOT try to explain the situation to command.
• Preserve all texts, videos, photos, and witness names.
• Document your recollection privately (attorney-client only).
• Avoid arguing with or contacting the alleged victim.
• Do not use social media to address the allegation.
• Contact an experienced UCMJ defense lawyer immediately.

➤ Protect Your Freedom, Rank & Future – Contact Gonzalez & Waddington

Article 97 – Frequently Asked Questions