Detention authority in the military is real and routinely exercised. Commanders and those acting under their authority can apprehend, arrest, and confine service members under defined rules. Because that authority flows down a chain of command, a hard question arises when a subordinate carries out a detention that turns out to be unlawful: is the commanding officer who set it in motion liable under Article 97 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or does responsibility rest only with the subordinate who physically performed the act? The answer depends on the commander’s own conduct and state of mind, because Article 97 is not an automatic supervisory-liability statute. It punishes a person for unlawful exercise of detention authority, and a commander can fall within it through their own acts, including ordering a detention they knew or should have known was unlawful.
What Article 97 prohibits
Article 97, codified at 10 U.S.C. 897, provides that any person subject to the Code who, except as provided by law, apprehends, arrests, or confines any person shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. The elements are that the accused apprehended, arrested, or confined a certain person, and that the accused unlawfully exercised authority to do so. The article applies to persons who hold authority under the Code to restrain others; it is not aimed at private acts of false imprisonment by those without such authority. The prosecution must show the restraint was against the will of the person restrained, and that the accused lacked a reasonable belief that the restraint was lawful.
That last point is important. The offense is not strict liability. A commander or other authorized person who reasonably believed a detention was lawful has a defense, because the mental element requires the absence of a reasonable belief in lawfulness.
A commander is liable for the commander’s own acts
The cleanest path to commander liability under Article 97 is direct: the commander personally exercised detention authority unlawfully. If a commander orders that a service member be confined without legal basis, the commander is exercising the authority to confine, and doing so unlawfully can fall squarely within the article. The fact that a subordinate physically escorted the member to confinement does not move responsibility away from the commander who ordered it. In military law, one who orders or directs an act can be treated as a principal, responsible for the conduct they cause another to perform. So a commander who directs an unlawful detention is not insulated merely because a subordinate executed the order.
The opposite is also true for the subordinate. A subordinate who carries out a manifestly unlawful detention order is not automatically excused, because obedience to an order is a defense only when the order is not patently illegal. But the existence of subordinate exposure does not eliminate the commander’s exposure; both can be analyzed under the same statute according to their own conduct and knowledge.
When the detention was the subordinate’s own doing
The harder scenario is a detention the subordinate undertook without the commander’s direction, or in a manner the commander did not order and did not condone. Article 97 punishes the person who unlawfully exercised the authority. A commander who neither ordered, knew of, nor ratified an unlawful detention by a subordinate has not personally exercised that authority unlawfully and is not automatically liable under the article simply by virtue of rank. There is no general doctrine that makes a commander criminally liable under Article 97 for every unlawful act of every subordinate.
That said, a commander can still be exposed if the facts show the commander’s own culpable conduct. If the commander knew a subordinate was unlawfully confining a member and allowed it to continue, ratified it, or created the conditions through an unlawful policy or order, the commander’s own acts may bring them within the article or related provisions. The analysis turns on what the commander did and knew, not on a presumption of vicarious responsibility.
Other provisions that may apply to commanders
A commander whose conduct does not fit Article 97 may still face accountability under other parts of the Code. Dereliction in the performance of duties under Article 92 can reach a commander who fails to perform a known duty regarding the lawful treatment of detained members. Cruelty or maltreatment under Article 93 can apply where a person subject to their orders is mistreated. Abuse of authority can also surface through other punitive articles. So the absence of Article 97 liability for a particular commander does not necessarily mean no accountability exists; it means the correct provision must match the commander’s actual conduct.
Practical guidance
For a commander, the lesson is that detention authority must be exercised with a documented legal basis and that ordering or tolerating confinement without one carries personal criminal risk under Article 97, not merely administrative consequences. For a service member who believes they were unlawfully detained, the identity of the responsible party matters: it may be the subordinate who executed the act, the commander who ordered it, or both, depending on who exercised the authority and with what knowledge. Anyone facing potential Article 97 exposure, or seeking to challenge an unlawful detention, should consult experienced military defense counsel to analyze the chain of decision-making and the reasonable-belief element.
Conclusion
Commanding officers can be liable under Article 97 for unlawful detentions, but liability is not automatic or purely vicarious. The article punishes the unlawful exercise of detention authority, so a commander who orders, knows of and permits, or ratifies an unlawful detention can be reached through their own conduct, while a commander with no involvement in a subordinate’s independent unlawful act is generally not liable under the article by rank alone. Because the offense requires the absence of a reasonable belief in lawfulness, and because related articles such as Article 92 and Article 93 may apply where Article 97 does not, the precise facts and the commander’s knowledge control the analysis, and competent military counsel should evaluate them.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the Rules for Courts-Martial, the Military Rules of Evidence, and related military administrative processes work as a matter of public legal education. It does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular case, and it is not a substitute for advice from a qualified military defense attorney who can evaluate the specific facts and command, service, and jurisdictional circumstances involved.
Reading this article, or contacting any website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author. Every court-martial, nonjudicial punishment action, administrative separation, and security-clearance matter turns on its own facts, the charged articles, the convening authority, the service branch, and the evidence, and outcomes vary widely from one case to another.
Military law also changes over time. The Military Justice Act of 2016 (effective January 1, 2019) and subsequent National Defense Authorization Acts renumbered and rewrote many punitive articles, revised the Article 32 preliminary hearing, and altered sentencing, clemency, and appellate procedures. Statutes, regulations, executive orders, the Manual for Courts-Martial, and decisions of the service Courts of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces may have been amended, superseded, or reinterpreted after this article was written, and article numbers or procedures cited here may have changed.
For these reasons, no reader should act or decline to act based on this content without first consulting a licensed attorney experienced in military justice about their own situation. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or current applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken in reliance on it. If you are facing investigation, charges, or an adverse administrative action, time limits may apply, and you should seek qualified counsel promptly.