FEDERAL · 18 U.S.C. · Chapter 65
Interference with the operation of a satellite
18 U.S.C. § 1367
Title18 — Crimes and Criminal Procedure
Chapter65 — MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
This text of 18 U.S.C. § 1367 (Interference with the operation of a satellite) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
18 U.S.C. § 1367.
Text
(a)Whoever, without the authority of the satellite operator, intentionally or maliciously interferes with the authorized operation of a communications or weather satellite or obstructs or hinders any satellite transmission shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than ten years or both.
(b)This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency or of an intelligence agency of the United States.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Onepoint Solutions, Llc, a Georgia Limited Liability Company v. Michael Borchert William Catuzzi
486 F.3d 342 (Eighth Circuit, 2007)
Coalition for the Abolition of Marijuana Prohibition v. City of Atlanta
219 F.3d 1301 (Eleventh Circuit, 2000)
Hansen v. Board of Trustees of Hamilton Southeastern School Corp.
551 F.3d 599 (Seventh Circuit, 2008)
Julie Olden, Richard Hunter, Wilbur Bleau, and All Others Similarly Situated v. Lafarge Corp.
383 F.3d 495 (Sixth Circuit, 2004)
Mireles v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
845 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (C.D. California, 2012)
Global Naps, Inc. v. Verizon New England Inc.
603 F.3d 71 (First Circuit, 2010)
D'ANTUONO v. Service Road Corp.
789 F. Supp. 2d 308 (D. Connecticut, 2011)
Derisme v. Hunt Leibert Jacobson P.C.
880 F. Supp. 2d 311 (D. Connecticut, 2012)
Cox Communications PCS, L.P. v. City of San Marcos
204 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (S.D. California, 2002)
MacH v. TRIPLE D SUPPLY, LLC
773 F. Supp. 2d 1018 (D. New Mexico, 2011)
Abrahams v. Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
473 F. Supp. 2d 550 (S.D. New York, 2007)
Bell v. Lackawanna County
892 F. Supp. 2d 647 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 2012)
Carroll v. City of Albuquerque
749 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (D. New Mexico, 2010)
Barbara v. K-Mart Corp.
899 F. Supp. 503 (E.D. Washington, 1995)
Kennedy v. Boardman
233 F. Supp. 3d 117 (District of Columbia, 2017)
United States v. Hochman
809 F. Supp. 202 (E.D. New York, 1992)
Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. Steuer
527 F. Supp. 2d 489 (E.D. Virginia, 2007)
Sullivan v. Metro-North Railroad
179 F. Supp. 2d 2 (D. Connecticut, 2002)
Stanley Electric Co. v. Crawford Equipment & Engineering Co.
249 F.R.D. 267 (S.D. Ohio, 2008)
Coalition for the Abolition v. City of Atlanta
219 F.3d 1301 (Eleventh Circuit, 2000)
Source Credit
History
(Added Pub. L. 99–508, title III, §303(a), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1872.)
Editorial Notes
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date
Section effective 90 days after Oct. 21, 1986, and, in case of conduct pursuant to court order or extension, applicable only with respect to court orders and extensions made after such date, with special rule for State authorizations of interceptions, see section 302 of Pub. L. 99–508, set out as a note under section 3121 of this title.
Effective Date
Section effective 90 days after Oct. 21, 1986, and, in case of conduct pursuant to court order or extension, applicable only with respect to court orders and extensions made after such date, with special rule for State authorizations of interceptions, see section 302 of Pub. L. 99–508, set out as a note under section 3121 of this title.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
18 U.S.C. § 1367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/18/1367.