Article 97 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, codified at 10 U.S.C. 897, makes it an offense to unlawfully apprehend, arrest, or confine another person. The question of whether a commander’s informal, spoken order can justify detaining a subordinate goes to the core of what makes a restraint lawful in the first place. A verbal order can authorize detention, but only if the order itself is lawful and the restraint stays within the bounds the law allows. An informal directive does not, by itself, immunize a detention that the law would otherwise condemn.
What Article 97 actually prohibits
The text of Article 97 is short: 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 offense has two elements. First, that the accused apprehended, arrested, or confined a certain person. Second, that the accused did so unlawfully, meaning the accused exercised the power to restrain without legal authority. The government need only show that the restraint was against the will of the person restrained; the use of force is not required. The focus is squarely on whether the restraint was authorized by law.
Lawful authority is the dividing line
The phrase “except as provided by law” is the key. Apprehension, arrest, and confinement are normal features of military life, and they are lawful when carried out by someone empowered to do so and on a proper basis. Commanders and others with the appropriate authority can direct restraint in defined circumstances, such as ordering pretrial restraint based on a reasonable belief that an offense was committed and that restraint is warranted. Article 97 reaches conduct that falls outside those legal channels. So the question is never simply whether an order was given, but whether the person had the authority to order the restraint and whether the legal predicate for it existed.
Can the order be verbal and informal?
Yes, a detention order does not have to be written or formal to be valid. Military authority is routinely exercised through spoken orders. The informality of the order is not what makes a detention lawful or unlawful. What matters is the substance: did the commander have the authority to direct the restraint, and was there a lawful basis for it? A commander with proper authority who verbally directs a justified restraint can give a lawful order. The same words, spoken without authority or without any lawful basis, do not become lawful merely because a commander uttered them.
When an informal order will not justify detention
An informal verbal order fails to justify a detention in several recurring situations. If the commander lacked the authority to order that form of restraint, the order is not a defense. If there was no lawful basis, such as no reasonable belief that an offense occurred and no proper purpose for the restraint, confining a subordinate is unlawful even on a commander’s say-so. If the restraint exceeded what the situation allowed, for example confining someone indefinitely or for an improper motive like personal punishment, retaliation, or coercion, the order cannot launder an otherwise unlawful detention. A commander cannot use a verbal directive to do indirectly what the law forbids directly.
The problem of the unlawful order
This area intersects with a bedrock principle of military law: subordinates are bound to obey lawful orders, but an order to commit an unlawful act is not a defense for the person who carries it out, and giving such an order can itself be misconduct. A noncommissioned officer or junior service member who detains someone purely on an informal verbal instruction may still face Article 97 exposure if the underlying order was unlawful, because the restraint was without legal authority. At the same time, the reasonableness of the actor’s belief that the restraint was lawful is relevant. The prosecution must show the accused did not have a reasonable belief that the restraint was lawful, so a subordinate who reasonably relied on what appeared to be a valid order from a commander with authority is in a different position than one who carried out an obviously improper detention.
How reasonable belief shapes liability
Because Article 97 turns on the absence of a reasonable belief in lawfulness, the analysis is fact intensive. A service member ordered by a commander with apparent authority, in circumstances that looked like a routine and justified restraint, may reasonably have believed the detention was lawful, which cuts against criminal liability. By contrast, a service member who detains a subordinate on a vague verbal order, with no offense in view and for an obviously improper purpose, cannot credibly claim a reasonable belief in lawfulness. The informality of the order tends to matter here as evidence: a hurried, ambiguous, off-the-record directive may make it harder to establish either genuine authority or a reasonable belief that the law permitted the restraint.
Practical guidance
For commanders, the lesson is that authority and a lawful basis, not formality, are what justify directing a restraint, and that a casual verbal order to confine someone for an improper reason invites Article 97 liability. For subordinates, the lesson is that “I was told to” is not a complete shield when the order to detain was unlawful, and that questioning or documenting an order to confine a fellow service member is prudent when the basis is unclear. For anyone detained on nothing more than an informal directive, the existence and limits of any lawful authority should be examined closely.
The bottom line
A commander’s informal verbal order can justify the detention of a subordinate under Article 97 only when the commander had the authority to order the restraint and a lawful basis existed for it. The order being spoken and informal is not the problem; the absence of legal authority or a proper basis is. Where the order is unlawful, neither the commander who gave it nor the subordinate who carried it out is protected, although a subordinate’s reasonable belief in the order’s lawfulness bears on individual liability. Because these cases turn on authority, basis, and reasonable belief, anyone facing an Article 97 issue should consult qualified military defense counsel.
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.