Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_16-cr-00077/USCOURTS-almd-1_16-cr-00077-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold Laverne Davis
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CR. NO. 1:16cr77-SRW

)

HAROLD LAVERNE DAVIS )

ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL

At the close of the government’s case, defendant made an oral motion for judgment 

of acquittal pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. As explained on the record at trial, for the 

reasons stated below the motion is due to be GRANTED. 

The information charges that defendant “willfully violated a defense property 

security regulation by introducing a firearm onto Fort Rucker in violation of a regulation 

prohibiting introduction of a firearm onto Fort Rucker without specific approval of the 

installation commander, in violation of Title 50, United States Code, Section 797.” (Doc. 

1). A “property security regulation” is a “regulation – relating to fire hazards, fire 

protection, lighting, machinery, guard service, disrepair, disuse, or other unsatisfactory 

conditions on such property, or the ingress thereto or egress or removal of persons 

therefrom; or . . . otherwise providing for safeguarding such property against destruction, 

loss, or injury by accident or by enemy action, sabotage, or other subversive actions.” 50 

U.S.C. § 797(a)(3)(A-B).

The statute further defines a “defense property security regulation” as a “property 

security regulation that, pursuant to lawful authority – shall be or has been promulgated 

Case 1:16-cr-00077-SRW Document 37 Filed 12/07/16 Page 1 of 2
2

or approved by the Secretary of Defense (or by a military commander designated by the 

Secretary of Defense or by a military officer, or a civilian officer or employee of the 

Department of Defense, holding a senior Department of Defense director position 

designated by the Secretary of Defense) for the protection or security of Department of 

Defense property; or ... shall be or has been promulgated or approved by the 

Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for the protection or 

security of NASA property. 50 U.S.C. § 797(a)(2)(A-B) (emphasis added).

Thus, it was the burden of the government to show, first, that there existed a 

“defense property security regulation” – defined and promulgated as set forth in the statute 

– and second, that defendant willfully violated this defense property security regulation. 

The government failed to meet the first of these burdens. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that defendant is hereby acquitted and discharged, and any bond 

exonerated.

DONE, on this the 7th day of December, 2016.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker

Susan Russ Walker

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:16-cr-00077-SRW Document 37 Filed 12/07/16 Page 2 of 2