(Credit: Frimufilms-freepik.com)
Practice Notes
Bicycling While Intoxicated Overseas
By Mr. R. Peter Masterton
Captain (CPT) Doe, an Army officer stationed in Germany, meets his friends one day after work and drinks several beers before returning home on his bicycle. Someone informed him that the German legal limit of intoxication while operating a bicycle is much higher than that for automobiles, and he believes he is well under this limit.1 The U.S. military police stop him at a random sobriety checkpoint and measure his blood alcohol level, which is .10 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. This is over the American military limit for drunk driving under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Still, CPT Doe thinks nothing of the incident because he was operating a bicycle. Shortly thereafter, his commander tells him that administrative action is being taken against him based on the military offense of drunk driving. CPT Doe is surprised to find out that the UCMJ offense applies not only to driving motorized vehicles but also to riding non-motorized vehicles like his bike.
This article will describe the rationale for applying the military drunk driving statute to the operation of bicycles and the consequences of that application for Service members. It will also discuss the application of this statute overseas and how it compares to foreign law.2
The Military Drunk Driving Statute Applies to Bicycles
Article 113 of the UCMJ (Article 113) makes it a crime to operate “any vehicle” while “drunk” or when the alcohol concentration in the offender’s blood is above a specific limit.3 Overseas, this limit is .08 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood, although the Secretary of Defense may set a lower limit by regulation.4
Article 113 relies on Title 1 of the U.S. Code to define vehicles.5 Under this definition, a vehicle includes “every description of carriage or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on land.”6 This is a comprehensive definition. For example, in United States v. Kiff, a Federal court held that container trailers loaded on railcars constituted “vehicles” under this meaning.7 While many courts have refused to extend the definition to aircraft or watercraft,8 it clearly applies to all means of land transportation, such as bicycles.9
Opinions differ regarding whether drunk driving prohibitions should extend to bicyclists. Bicycling while intoxicated is not illegal in some U.S. jurisdictions,10 and some members of the legal community argue it should not be because, unlike drunk operators of motor vehicles, drunk bicyclists are unlikely to kill or injure other drivers.11 Others argue that the risk drunk bicyclists pose to themselves is justification enough for a prohibition and that their erratic movements can endanger others on public highways by causing equally erratic reactions.12
The military prohibition on bicycling while intoxicated likely stems from concerns for Service members’ health and safety. The increased penalty that accompanies drunk driving when it results in personal injury—even if the accused is the only one injured—demonstrates the likely motivation behind these prohibitions.13 Other possible motivations for criminalizing drunk bicycling may be concern for good order and discipline within the force and maintaining the military’s reputation. This reasoning is consistent with other military offenses. For example, drunkenness that is service discrediting or prejudicial to good order and discipline is an offense under military law.14 Service members who operate bicycles while intoxicated can adversely affect good order and discipline and discredit the service by their unsafe acts. Moreover, Service members who intentionally injure themselves to avoid duty or do so under circumstances that are service discrediting or prejudicial to good order and discipline have also violated military law.15 Service members may commit these exact offenses if they injure themselves by bicycling while drunk.
The Consequences of Bicycling While Intoxicated Overseas
In the United States, Service members who operate vehicles, including bicycles, while drunk are usually prosecuted in state or Federal civilian courts.16 Overseas, such offenses are often prosecuted under Article 113.17 However, the rules governing the application of U.S. military versus foreign law overseas are often quite complex.
In most locations where large numbers of U.S. Service members are stationed, a status of forces agreement (SOFA) gives the United States the authority to prosecute Service members under the UCMJ.18 Host nations can also prosecute offenses committed within their territory.19 Under most SOFAs, if a U.S. Service member commits a crime that violates host nation law but not U.S. military law, the host nation will have sole jurisdiction over the offense.20 The U.S. military has sole jurisdiction if the Service member’s crime violates U.S. military law but not host nation law.21 As described in more detail below, the United States would have sole jurisdiction over CPT Doe’s drunken operation of a bicycle in Germany because he had a blood alcohol level above the U.S. military limit but below the host nation limit (he violated U.S. law but not German law).
In many cases, drunk bicycling offenses will constitute a violation of both U.S. military and host nation law. In those cases, concurrent jurisdiction exists between the host nation and the U.S. military. SOFAs will usually determine which entity has primary jurisdiction. In most situations involving drunk bicycling, the host nation will have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction under the relevant SOFA. The only exception is the unusual case where an intoxicated Service member rides a bicycle while on official duty.22 Even if the host nation does have primary jurisdiction, it is often willing to waive this right and allow the U.S. Armed Forces to handle the case under military law.23 U.S. policy is to maximize jurisdiction when its Service members commit crimes in foreign nations.24 The summaries that follow show how these overlapping rules apply in different countries.
A German bicycle lane. (Credit: Fabian Deter)
Germany
As mentioned at the outset of this article, German laws on the drunken operation of bicycles are significantly different from Article 113. In Germany, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) SOFA permits both the U.S. military and German authorities to prosecute drunk bicycling offenses.25 Although Germany will generally have the primary right to prosecute,26 the German Supplementary Agreement to the NATO SOFA contains an automatic waiver of this right once the German authorities are notified of the offense; however, German authorities have the ability to recall this waiver within twenty-one days.27
Under German law, sanctions may be assessed against those who operate a bicycle while drunk only if the operator’s blood alcohol concentration is at or above 1.6 “promille,”28 which is equivalent to an American measurement of .15 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood.29 When U.S. Service members operate bicycles with a blood alcohol level over the military limit (.08 grams per 100 milliliters of blood) but under the German limit (.15 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood), they are subject to punishment solely under U.S. military law.30 However, when Service members are at or above the German limit, they are subject to both German and U.S. jurisdictions.31
In cases where the United States handles the offense through court-martial32 or nonjudicial punishment33 under Article 113, the offender will be subject to several administrative sanctions. For Soldiers in the U.S. Army, this will include a general officer memorandum of reprimand.34 The U.S. Armed Forces have a robust regulatory scheme for granting driving privileges to its Service members stationed in Germany, including obtaining a U.S. Forces Certificate of License to drive privately owned vehicles.35 The U.S. Armed Forces will revoke this certificate when a military court convicts a Service member under Article 113 or if a Service member receives nonjudicial punishment for drunk bicycling.36 In addition, the U.S. Armed Forces will notify the issuing agency of the offender’s U.S. license of the revocation,37 although the decision to suspend the offender’s state license is within that agency’s discretion.38
In the unusual case where German officials prosecute the case, the result will be similar. In Germany, drunk bicycling constitutes a criminal offense.39 As a result, the offender will be subject to the military administrative penalties mentioned above, including revocation of driving privileges40 and notification of the offender’s U.S. state driver’s agency.41 Additionally, Army Service members will be issued a general officer memorandum of reprimand.42
A bicyclist in Amsterdam. (Credit: rawpixel.com)
Netherlands
In the Netherlands, the NATO SOFA also permits both the U.S. military and Dutch authorities to prosecute Service members for drunk bicycling.43 As in Germany, the Netherlands usually has the primary right to prosecute.44 However, the Netherlands has also entered into a supplemental agreement to the NATO SOFA, which waives this primary right unless “it is of particular importance that jurisdiction be exercised by the Netherlands authorities.”45
Under Dutch law, it is illegal to operate a bicycle with a blood alcohol concentration at or above .5 promille,46 which is equivalent to the American measurement of .047 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood.47 The only authorized punishment for drunk bicycling in the Netherlands is an administrative fine.48 U.S. Service members who operate bicycles with a blood alcohol level of .047 grams per 100 milliliters or higher but below the UCMJ limit of .08 grams per 100 milliliters will be subject only to Dutch jurisdiction.49 If the level is .08 or above, they will be subject to both Dutch and U.S. military jurisdiction.50
If Dutch authorities take action against a Service member for bicycling while intoxicated, it will not constitute a criminal prosecution because the offender is only subject to a fine. As a result, Army Soldiers may not receive the written reprimand from a general officer mentioned above.51 The U.S. Armed Forces in the Netherlands have a relatively robust system for granting driving privileges; personnel are required to obtain a U.S. Armed Forces license to operate privately owned vehicles.52 The U.S. Armed Forces will suspend or revoke this license based on a “[c]onviction by host-nation courts or authorities.”53 A Dutch fine for bicycling while intoxicated probably would not constitute such a conviction, especially if the blood alcohol level was below the proscribed limit under Article 113. There is no requirement to report a Dutch fine for drunk bicycling to U.S. state driver’s licensing authorities unless the U.S. Armed Forces revoke the offender’s driving privileges for a year or more.54
In cases where U.S. military commanders punish offenders by court-martial or nonjudicial punishment under Article 113, offenders will face many of the same administrative sanctions in the Netherlands as they would in Germany. Army Soldiers will be issued a written reprimand from a general officer.55 In addition, the offender’s U.S. Armed Forces driver’s license may be suspended or revoked.56 The U.S. Armed Forces are required to report revocations of one year or more to the offender’s U.S. state driver’s agency,57 even though that agency might not take any action against the offender.58
Antwerp, Belgium. (Credit: Trougnouf)
Belgium
The NATO SOFA also permits both the U.S. military and Belgium to prosecute drunk bicycling incidents that occur in Belgium.59 As in Germany and the Netherlands, Belgium generally has the primary right to prosecute.60 While there is no supplementary agreement of general application, the United States still attempts to request the release of jurisdiction over drunk bicycling cases in Belgium.61
As in the Netherlands, Belgian law prohibits operating a bicycle with a blood alcohol concentration at or above .5 promille,62 equivalent to an American measurement of .047 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood.63 However, like the Netherlands’ law, a fine is the only punishment for drunk bicycling under Belgian law.64 Service members who operate bicycles at or above this Belgian limit but below the U.S. military limit (.08 grams per 100 milliliters of blood) are subject only to Belgian jurisdiction.65 Service members who operate bicycles at or above the U.S. military limit are subject to concurrent Belgian and U.S. military jurisdiction.66
If Belgian authorities take action against a Service member for bicycling while intoxicated, the case will not constitute a criminal prosecution because the offender is only subject to a fine.67 As a result, Army Soldiers may not be subject to the written reprimand from a general officer mentioned above.68 The U.S. Armed Forces in Belgium do not have the same robust driver licensing scheme that exists in Germany or the Netherlands; rather, the U.S. Armed Forces in Belgium are only authorized to suspend on-post driving privileges.69 Unless the U.S. Armed Forces revoke an offender’s on-post driving privileges for a year or more due to a Belgian fine for drunk bicycling, there is no requirement to notify the offender’s U.S. state driver’s licensing agency of the Belgian fine.70
In cases where Belgium waives its primary right to exercise jurisdiction and Service members are prosecuted under Article 113, they will face some of the same administrative sanctions as they would in Germany. Army Soldiers will receive a written reprimand from a general officer.71 Service members convicted under Article 113 may have their on-post driving privileges suspended;72 however, such suspensions might not be reported to their U.S. state driver’s licensing agencies,73 and the offenders are unlikely to lose their U.S. state driver’s licenses.74
Transfagarasan Pass, Romania (Credit: itoldya-pixabay)
Romania
In Romania, the NATO SOFA also allows both the U.S. military and Romanian authorities to prosecute drunk bicycling cases.75 As in Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium, the Romanians generally have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction.76 Romania has entered into two supplements to the NATO SOFA.77 In one of these supplements, Romania agreed to automatically waive its right to exercise jurisdiction thirty days after notification of an offense and will only withdraw this waiver in serious cases of “particular importance and major interests of Romania.”78
Under Romanian law, fines can be issued for anyone who operates a bicycle while intoxicated; the limit is 0.0 promille, or any blood alcohol concentration.79 However, the only penalty is a fine.80 Service members who operate a bicycle with any level of intoxication that is below the U.S. military limit (.08 grams per 100 milliliters of blood) are subject only to Romanian prosecution.81 Those who operate bicycles at or above the U.S. military limit are subject to both U.S. military and Romanian jurisdiction.82
If Romanian authorities take action against a Service member for bicycling while intoxicated, the case will not constitute a criminal prosecution because the offender is only subject to a fine. As a result, Army Soldiers probably will not receive the written reprimand from a general officer mentioned above.83 The U.S. Armed Forces have no separate regulatory scheme for granting driving privileges to its Service members stationed in Romania; U.S. Service members rely on one of the supplements to the NATO SOFA to use their U.S. state driver’s licenses to operate vehicles in Romania.84 Romanian authorities have no obligation to notify U.S. state driver’s licensing agencies when they fine U.S. Service members for bicycling while intoxicated.85
In situations where the U.S. Armed Forces handle the case through court-martial or nonjudicial punishment under Article 113, the offender will be subject to some of the same administrative penalties applicable to a Service member in Germany. Army Soldiers will receive a written reprimand from a general officer.86 However, because the U.S. Armed Forces do not regulate driving privileges in Romania, there is no explicit requirement to report Romanian drunk bicycling fines to the offenders’ U.S. state driver’s licensing agencies,87 and the offenders are unlikely to lose their U.S. state driver’s licenses.88
Seoul, South Korea. (Credit: Seoul Guide Korea)
Republic of Korea
The SOFA between the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the United States has many of the same provisions as the NATO SOFA.89 As a result, the U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) can prosecute drunk bicycling cases involving its Service members stationed in the ROK under Article 113.90 The ROK can also prosecute these offenses and generally has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction.91 Although the U.S. military may ask Korean officials to waive this right, Korean officials can choose not to grant the request.92
Korean law makes it an offense to operate any vehicle, including a bicycle, with a blood alcohol level at or above .03 grams per 100 milliliters of blood.93 The penalties for these types of offenses include fines and imprisonment.94 U.S. Service members who operate a bicycle at or above the Korean limit but below the U.S. military limit (.08 grams per 100 milliliters of blood) are subject only to Korean jurisdiction.95 Service members who are at or above the U.S military limit will be subject to both Korean and U.S. military jurisdiction.96
If Korean authorities convict a Service member for bicycling while intoxicated, it will constitute a criminal conviction. The offender will be subject to all of the military administrative penalties for drunk driving, including, for Army Soldiers, a written reprimand from a general officer.97 USFK has a robust system of regulating the driving privileges of its personnel, including issuing USFK operator’s permits for privately owned vehicles.98 Individuals convicted by Korean authorities for bicycling while intoxicated will have their driving privileges revoked for one year.99 USFK commanders will notify offenders’ U.S. state driver’s agencies.100
In cases where USFK handles the case through court-martial or nonjudicial punishment under Article 113, the result will be the same. Army Soldiers will be issued the written reprimand from a general officer mentioned above.101 Offenders will lose their USFK driving privileges.102 In addition, offenders’ U.S. state driver’s licensing agencies will be notified,103 although the offenders might not lose their U.S. state driver’s licenses.104
Conclusion
The consequences of a drunk bicycling prosecution under military law and host nation laws may vary dramatically. The countries discussed above provide a representative sampling of these similarities and differences and demonstrate the challenges facing commanders, Service members, and their lawyers in navigating this area of the law.
Some countries, such as Romania, the ROK, Belgium, and the Netherlands, prohibit drunk bicycling at an intoxication level much lower than that proscribed by Article 113. In these countries, the host nation will have sole jurisdiction if the Service member’s level of intoxication violates host nation law but is under the level prohibited by Article 113. If the Service member’s level of intoxication violates both host nation law and Article 113, the U.S. military and the host nation will have concurrent jurisdiction.
Other countries, like Germany, permit drunk bicycling at an intoxication level higher than what Article 113 prohibits. In these countries, the U.S. military will have sole jurisdiction if the Service member’s level of intoxication violates Article 113 but does not violate the host nation’s law. If the Service member’s level of intoxication violates both Article 113 and host nation law, the U.S. military and the host nation will have concurrent jurisdiction.
If the U.S. military and the host nation have concurrent jurisdiction, the host nation will usually have the primary right to prosecute. However, the host nation may waive its jurisdiction and allow the U.S. military to handle the case.
If the U.S. military prosecutes a Service member for drunk bicycling under Article 113, the accused will be subject to a number of administrative penalties. These may include revocation of overseas driving privileges and, for Soldiers in the U.S. Army, service of a written reprimand from a general officer. If the host nation prosecutes the same case, the accused may not be subject to the administrative penalties normally associated with drunk operation of vehicles, especially if the prosecution results in an administrative fine rather than a criminal conviction. Even if the host nation prosecution results in a criminal conviction, the accused may not lose driving privileges because the U.S. Armed Forces’ regulation of Service members’ driving privileges varies from country to country.
Judge advocates (JAs) should understand the rules and consequences of drunk bicycling under both military and host nation law. Because there are often significant differences between the two, JAs must be prepared to explain these differences to the commanders and Service members they advise. TAL
Mr. Masterton is the Chief of International Law for the 21st Theater Sustainment Command in Kaiserslautern, Germany.
Notes
1. Under German law, fines can be assessed against those who operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration at or over .5 promille (“per thousands” or grams of pure alcohol per kilogram of blood). See Straßenverkehrsgesetz [STVG] [Road Traffic Act], Mar. 5, 2003, BGBI I at 919, last amended by Gesetzes, Oct. 23, 2024, BGBI 2024 I at 323, § 24a (Ger.), https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvg/__24a.html. This is equivalent to an American blood alcohol measurement of .047 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. However, German law only requires sanctions be assessed against those who operate bicycles with an alcohol concentration at or over 1.6 promille (equivalent to an American measurement of .15 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood. See id. § 316, https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__316.html (prohibiting operation of any vehicle, including a bicycle, when unable to do so safely because of intoxication); 5 Münchener Kommentar zum StGB [Munich Commentary on Road Traffic Law] § 316 at 44 (3d ed. 2019) (describing case law setting the 1.6 promille limit for bicycles). See also Kathleen S., Alkohol am Steuer: Sanktionen gemäß Bußgeldkatalog , Bussgeldkatalog [German Fine Catalog], (Aug. 11, 2024), https://www.bussgeldkatalog.de/alkohol (motor vehicles); Kathleen S., Bußgeldkatalog – Alkohol auf dem Fahrrad [Catalog of Fines – Drinking Alcohol on the Bike], Bussgeldkatalog [German Fine Catalog], (Aug. 11, 2024), https://www.bussgeldkatalog.de/promillegrenze-fahrrad. The German units are based on weight of alcohol relative to weight of blood while the American units are based on weight of alcohol relative to volume of blood. As a result, the conversion involves using the specific gravity of whole blood, which is 1.06. See Units of Breath and Blood Alcohol Concentration, Lion Lab’y Ltd., https://www.lionlaboratories.com/testing-for-alcohol/alcohol-measurement-units (last visited Dec. 31, 2024) (supporting the author’s calculations to compare limits).
2. The author would like to thank the following people for their assistance in researching host nation laws: Joerg Moddelmog (Germany), Jarin Nijhof (the Netherlands), Marianne Schoonjans and Robert Vedra (Belgium), Flavius Graur Vartopeanu (Romania), and Leslie Feist and Chun Cha (Korea).
3. UCMJ art. 113(a)(2) (2024).
4. See id. art. 113(b)(1)(B).
5. Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, pt. IV, ¶ 51(c)(1) (2024) [hereinafter MCM].
6. 1 U.S.C. § 4.
7. See United States v. Kiff, 377 F. Supp. 2d 586, 590 (E.D. La. 2005) (holding that theft from the trailers constituted theft from a “vehicle” under the relevant Federal statute).
8. E.g. McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931) (refusing to extend the term “vehicle” to aircraft). In this case, the accused was convicted under the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act for transporting an aircraft from Illinois to Oklahoma. Id. Overturning the conviction, the Court ruled that an airplane is not covered by either the term “motor vehicle” in the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act or the more general definition of “vehicle” in 1 U.S.C. § 4. See id. at 26. In In re Barnick, the court denied an assertion that injuries caused by a debtor’s drunken operation of a motor boat could not be discharged in bankruptcy because it constituted operation of a “motor vehicle” under the Bankruptcy Code existing at the time. In re Barnick, 353 B.R. 233, 246 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2006) (refusing to apply the term “vehicle” to a water vessel).
9. See 353 B.R. at 239. The court in Barnick held that the term “vehicle,” defined in 1 U.S.C. § 4, had nothing to do with the compound term “motor vehicle” in the Bankruptcy Code. Id.
10. See, e.g., Monsanto v. Wells, 902 P.2d 1266 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).
11. See Rick Bernardi, Is BUI Like DUI? Bicycle L. (Nov. 30, 2012), https://www.bicyclelaw.com/is-bui-like-dui.
12. See City of Columbus v. Brown, No. 05AP-344, 2005 Ohio App. LEXIS 5508, at *10-12 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2005) (finding the Columbus, Ohio, city code criminalizing drunk bicycling constitutional based on dangers to offenders and others).
13. See United States v. Driver, 36 M.J. 1020, 1023 (N.M.C.M.R. 1993).
14. See UCMJ art. 134 (2024); see also MCM, supra note 5, pt. IV, ¶ 98.
15. See UCMJ arts. 83, 134 (2024); MCM, supra note 5, pt. IV, ¶¶ 7,107.
16. Drunk driving offenses occurring off military installations are usually prosecuted by state officials under state law. While the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit a state government and the Federal Government from prosecuting an individual for the same offense, Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. 678 (2019), the military generally does not prosecute crimes under the UCMJ that have already been prosecuted by state authorities. See U.S. Dep’t of Army, Reg. 27-10, Military Justice para. 4-2 (20 Mar. 2024) [hereinafter AR 27-10]. Drunk driving offenses occurring on military installations are usually prosecuted before a U.S. magistrate judge using the Assimilated Crimes Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 13; AR 27-10, supra, para. 23-5(a); see also Major Aaron L. Lykling, The Disposition of Intoxicated Driving Offenses Committed by Soldiers on Military Installations, Army Law., Jan. 2013, at 5, 8 (explaining that most military installations in the United States refer on-post drunk driving offenses for prosecution in Federal magistrate court and describing the advantages of doing so); Major Dean W. Korsak, Optimizing Military Installation Jurisdiction, 81 A.F. L. Rev. 133, 170-72 (2020).
17. UCMJ art. 113 (2024).
18. Dieter Fleck et al., The Handbook of the Law of Visiting Forces 223 (2d ed. 2018).
19. See id.
20. See id.
21. See id.
22. See id. at 224-27. Normally the U.S. Armed Forces, as the “sending state,” will have primary jurisdiction in these cases only when (1) the offense was solely against the security of property of the U.S. Armed Forces or the person or property of a Service member, Civilian, or dependent of the U.S. Armed Forces or (2) the offense arose out of an act done in performance of an official duty. Id. For all other offenses, the “receiving state” (the host nation) will have primary jurisdiction. Id. In the normal case where an off-duty Service member operates a bicycle while intoxicated, the host nation would have primary jurisdiction.
23. Id. at 227-31.
24. See U.S. Dep’t of Army, Reg. 27-50, U.S. Dep’t of Navy, Sec’y of Navy Instr. 5820.4G, U.S. Dep’t of Air Force, Instr. 51-706, Status of Forces Policies, Procedures, and Information para. 1-7 (15 Dec. 1989) [hereinafter Joint SOFA Regulation].
25. See Agreement Between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty Regarding the Status of Their Forces, art. VII, para. 1, June 19, 1951, 4 U.S.T 1792, T.I.A.S. 2846 [hereinafter NATO SOFA].
26. See id. art. VII, para. 3. The United States will only have the primary right of jurisdiction if the offense occurred in the performance of official duties or the offense was solely against the person or property of another Service member, Civilian, or dependent of the U.S. Armed Forces. Id.
27. See Agreement to Supplement the Agreement between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty regarding the Status of Their Forces with respect to Foreign Forces Stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany (Revised Supplementary Agreement), art. 19, Aug. 3, 1959, amended Mar. 18, 1993, 14 U.S.T. 531, BGBl 1994 II S. 2594, 2598. In several German states, this waiver does not require prior notice for minor offenses, including drunk driving. See Letter from Rheinland Pfalz Ministerium der Justiz to Landesjustizverbindungsstelle, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, HQ, 21st Theater Army Area Command, subject: Strafgerichtsbarkeit nach dern NATO- Truppenstatut und seinen Zusatzvereinbarungen [criminal jurisdiction under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement and its supplementary agreements] (Nov. 22, 1995) (on file with author); Letter from Bayerishes Staastsministerium des Innern to Zentrale Bussgeldstelle im Bayerischen Polizeiverwaltungsamt Viechtach, subject: Vollzug des NATO-Trupenstatute [implementation of the NATO Status of Forces Agreement] (Nov. 18, 2006) (on file with author).
28. See supra note 1 and accompanying text.
29. As mentioned at the outset of this article, the German units are based on weight of alcohol relative to weight of blood, while the American units are based on weight of alcohol relative to volume of blood. See supra note 1 and accompanying text. As a result, the conversion involves using the specific gravity of whole blood, which is 1.06. See supra note 1; Raymond J Trudnowski & Rodolfo C. Rico, Specific Gravity of Blood and Plasma at 4 and 37 Degrees Celcius, 5 Clinical Chemistry 615, 615 (1974).
30. See NATO SOFA, supra note 25, art. VII, para. 2(a).
31. See id. art. VII, para. 1.
32. See MCM, supra note 5, pt. IV, ¶ 51(d). The maximum penalty for drunk driving resulting in injury includes eighteen months confinement, a dishonorable discharge, and total forfeitures of pay and allowances. Id.
33. See UCMJ art. 113 (2024). Nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ is authorized for “minor offenses,” which ordinarily include those with maximum punishments that do not include a dishonorable discharge or confinement for over one year. MCM, supra note 5, pt. V, ¶ 1(e). This punishment is ordinarily appropriate for drunk bicycling under Article 113 that does not result in personal injury because the maximum punishment for this offense includes only six months confinement, a bad-conduct discharge, and total forfeitures of pay and allowances. Id. pt. IV, ¶ 51(d).
34. U.S. Dep’t of Army, Reg. 190–5, U.S. Dep’t of Navy, Chief, Naval Operations Instr. 11200.5D, U.S. Dep’t of Air Force, Instr. 31-218(I), U.S. Marine Corps, Order 5110.1D, Motor Vehicle Traffic Supervision para. 2-7(a)(1) (22 May 2006) [hereinafter Joint Traffic Regulation].
35. See U.S. Army in Europe and Africa, Reg. 190-1, U.S. Naval Forces Europe/U.S. Naval Forces Africa/U.S. Sixth Fleet Instr. 11240.6AC, U.S. Air Forces in Europe, U.S. Air Forces Africa Instr. 31-202, Driver and Vehicle Requirements and the Installation Traffic Code for the U.S. Forces in Germany para. 2-1 (1 Oct. 2024) [hereinafter U.S. Forces Germany Joint Driver Regulation].
36. Id. para. 2-15(a)(4)(b).
37. Id. para. 2-15(d).
38. See Lykling, supra note 16, at 10; Major Marshall L. Wilde, Incomplete Justice: Unintended Consequences of Military NJP, 60 A.F. L. Rev. 115, 134-35 (2007).
39. See Straßenverkehrsgesetz [STVG] [Road Traffic Act], Mar. 5, 2003, BGBI I at 919, last amended by Gesetzes, Oct. 23, 2024, BGBI 2024 I at 323, § 316 (Ger.), https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__316.html.
40. See U.S. Forces Germany Joint Driver Regulation, supra note 35, para. 2-15(a)(4)(b). A revocation is required for a civilian court conviction for drunk driving. Id. A revocation is also required if German civil authorities prohibit a person from driving in Germany. Id. para. 2-16.
41. Id. para. 2-15(d).
42. See Joint Traffic Regulation, supra note 34, para. 2-7(a)(1).
43. See NATO SOFA, supra note 25, art. VII, para. 1.
44. See id. art. VII, para. 3. The United States will only have the primary right of jurisdiction if the offense occurred in the performance of official duties or the offense was solely against the person or property of another Service member, Civilian, or dependent of the U.S. Armed Forces. Id.
45. Exchange of Notes (with annex) Constituting an Agreement Relating to the Stationing of United States Armed Forces in the Netherlands, annex, para. 3, Aug. 13, 1954, 6 U.S.T. 103, 251 U.N.T.S. 91 [hereinafter Dutch Supplement]. If a drunk bicycling incident results in personal injury, the Dutch may decide to exercise jurisdiction.
46. See Wegenverkeerswet [Road Traffic Act 1994] art. 8, para. 2(b), https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0006622/2021-10-19 (last visited Dec. 31, 2024) (Neth.). It is prohibited to conduct any vehicle (motorized or not) with an alcohol limit of .5 promille. Id.; see also Mobility, Public Transport and Road Safety: Road Safety, Gov’t of the Netherlands, https://www.government.nl/topics/mobility-public-transport-and-road-safety/road-safety/alcohol-drugs-and-driving (last visited Dec. 31, 2024).
47. See supra note 1.
48. Wegenverkeerswet, supra note 46, art. 8.
49. See NATO SOFA, supra note 25, art. VII, para. 2(b).
50. See id. art. VII, para. 1.
51. See supra note 34 and accompanying text; see also UCMJ art. 113 (2024). Such reprimands are required when Soldiers are convicted by a “civilian court” of “drunk or impaired driving either on or off the installation.” Joint Traffic Regulation, supra note 34, para. 2-7(a)(1). A Dutch fine for drunk bicycling would probably not be considered such a conviction, especially if the offfender’s blood alcohol level is below the limit specified in UCMJ Article 113.
52. See U.S. Dep’t of Army, Army in Europe Reg. 550-35, Regulations on Personal Property, Local Currency, and Motor Vehicles for U.S. Personnel in the Netherlands para. 27 (8 Mar. 2023) [hereinafter Army in Europe Motor Vehicle Regulation in Netherlands].
53. Id. para. 29(d)(1).
54. See Joint Traffic Regulation, supra note 34, para. 2-11, app. B.
55. See id. para. 2-7.
56. Army in Europe Motor Vehicle Regulation in Netherlands, supra note 52, para. 30(d)(2).
57. See Joint Traffic Regulation, supra note 34, para. 2-11, app. B.
58. See Lykling, supra note 16, at 10; see also Wilde, supra note 38, at 134-35.
59. See NATO SOFA, supra note 25, art. VII, para. 1.
60. See id. art. VII, para. 3. The United States will only have the primary right of jurisdiction if the offense occurred in the performance of official duties or the offense was solely against the person or property of another Service member, Civilian, or dependent of the U.S. Armed Forces. Id.
61. See Joint SOFA Regulation, supra note 24, para. 1-7.
62. Loi du 16 Mars 1968 relative à la police de la circulation routière [Law of March 16, 1968 relating to road traffic policing] art. 34, § 1, https://www.code-de-la-route.be/fr/reglementation/1968031601~invynqx4tj#hbvzg6930d; Driving Under the Influence, Code de la Route, https://www.code-de-la-route.be/fr/infractions-routieres/conduite-sous-influence (last visited Dec. 31, 2024).
63. See supra note 1 and accompanying text.
64. See Driving Under the Influence, supra note 62.
65. See NATO SOFA, supra note 25, art. VII, para. 2(b).
66. See id. art. VII, para. 1.
67. See Driving Under the Influence, supra note 62.
68. Army Soldiers are required to receive a written reprimand from a general officer only if they are “convicted” by a civilian court of “drunk or impaired driving either on or off the installation.” Joint Traffic Regulation, supra note 34, para. 2-7(a)(1). A Belgian fine for drunk bicycling probably would not be considered to be such a conviction, especially if the blood alcohol level is below the limit specified in Article 113 of the UCMJ.
69. In Belgium, driving on NATO installations is regulated by the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE). Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe Directive 100-001, Traffic and Parking Regulations para. 1-1 (27 Aug. 2019) [hereinafter SHAPE Traffic Regulation], https://www.shape2day.com/resources/site1/General/SES/SD100001Traffic%20and%20Parking%20Regulations.pdf. Driving while impaired by alcohol is a violation of a SHAPE regulation and can result in suspension of the privilege to drive on SHAPE installations. Id. ch. 6, para. 1-5. Bicyclists must adhere to the same traffic laws as motor driven vehicles. Id. ch. 6, para. 1-7(b).
70. See Joint Traffic Regulation, supra note 34, para. 2-11, app. B.
71. See id. para. 2-7.
72. See SHAPE Traffic Regulation, supra note 69, ch. 6, para. 1-5.
73. The U.S. Armed Forces are required to notify the offender’s U.S. state driver’s agency only if on-post driving privileges are revoked for a year or more. Joint Traffic Regulation, supra note 35, app. B.
74. See Lykling, supra note 16, at 10; see also Wilde, supra note 38, at 134-35.
75. See NATO SOFA, supra note 25, art. VII, para. 1.
76. The United States will only have the primary right of jurisdiction if the offense occurred in the performance of official duties or the offense was solely against the person or property of another Service member, Civilian, or dependent of the U.S. Armed Forces. Id. art. VII, para. 3.
77. Agreement between the United States of America and Romania Regarding the Status of United States Forces in Romania, Oct. 30, 2001, T.I.A.S. 13170 [hereinafter Romanian SOFA]; Agreement Between the United States of America and Romania Regarding the Activities of Unites States Force Located in the Territory of Romania, 6 Dec. 2005, T.I.A.S. 06-721.
78. Romanian SOFA, supra note 77, art. III, paras. 1, 3.
79. Government Emergency Ordinance 195/2002, art. 102, para. 37(3)(a), Monitorul Oficial Al Romaniei [Official Gazette of Romania], Part I, no. 670 (Aug. 3, 2006).
80. See id.
81. See NATO SOFA, supra note 25, art. VII, para. 2(b).
82. See id., art. VII, para. 1.
83. U.S. Army Soldiers are only required to receive reprimands from a general officer when they are “convicted” by a civilian court of “drunk or impaired driving either on or off the installation.” Joint Traffic Regulation, supra note 34, para. 2-7(a)(1). A Romanian fine for drunk bicycling would probably not be considered such a conviction, especially if the blood alcohol level were below that required under Article 113 of the UCMJ.
84. See Romanian SOFA, supra note 77, art. XV.
85. See id.
86. Joint Traffic Regulation, supra note 34, para. 2-7(a)(1).
87. Id. para. 2-11, app. B.
88. See Lykling, supra note 16, at 10; Wilde supra note 38, at 134-35.
89. Compare Agreement under Article IV of the Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States of America and the Republic of Korea, Regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Korea, July 9, 1966, 17 U.S.T. 1677, T.I.A.S. 6127, 674 U.N.T.S. 163 [hereinafter U.S. Korea SOFA], with NATO SOFA, supra note 25.
90. See U.S. Korea SOFA, supra note 89, art. XXII, para. 1(a).
91. The United States will only have the primary right of jurisdiction if the offense occurred in the performance of official duties or the offense was solely against the person or property of another Service member, Civilian, or dependent of the U.S. Armed Forces. Id. art. XXII, paras. 1(b), 3.
92. See id. art. XXII, para. 3(c).
93. 도로교통법 [Road Traffic Act], art. 44, https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=50713&lang=ENG (last visited on Dec. 31, 2024).
94. See id. art. 148-2(3).
95. See U.S. Korea SOFA, supra note 89, art. XXII, para. 2(b).
96. See id, art. XXII, para. 1.
97. See Joint Traffic Regulation, supra note 34, para. 2-7(a)(1).
98. See U.S. Dep’t of Army, U.S. Forces Korea Reg. 190-1, Motor Vehicle Traffic Supervision para. 2-1 (18 Feb. 2021) [hereinafter USFK Traffic Regulation].
99. See id. para. 2-3(c)(2)(b).
100. See id. para. 2-3(d)(4).
101. See Joint Traffic Regulation, supra note 34, para. 2-7(a)(1).
102. See USFK Traffic Regulation, supra note 98, para. 2-3(c)(2)(b).
103. See id. para. 2-3(d)(4).
104. See Lykling, supra note 16, at 10; Wilde, supra note 38, at 134-35.