Category Archives: Military searches

S.D.Ga.: Oral military search authorizations do not violate 4A or Rule 41

Oral search warrant requests and authorizations under M.R.E. 315 do not violate the Fourth Amendment or Rule 41. Many cases so hold. The violation of the SOP manual for military magistrates wasn’t serious enough to justify suppression nor prevent the … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Military searches, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on S.D.Ga.: Oral military search authorizations do not violate 4A or Rule 41

N-M Ct.Crim.App.: Lack of CO’s actual authority to issue search authorization fatal to search; no GFE

The Court Martial judge erred in concluding that a particular major had authority to authorize searches of appellant’s body, office, and personal property because she was not a “commander” for the purposes of Mil. R. Evid. 315 even though her … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Military searches | Comments Off on N-M Ct.Crim.App.: Lack of CO’s actual authority to issue search authorization fatal to search; no GFE

CAAF: Military GFE satisfied here; three military lawyers also asked about PC

In applying the military good faith exception under M.R.E. 311(c)(3), the court finds the NMCCA properly applied the exception which, under rule, blends into probable cause. There clearly was a substantial basis for finding probable cause, and good faith was … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Military searches | Comments Off on CAAF: Military GFE satisfied here; three military lawyers also asked about PC

Army: Def’s housing was under control of the Ft. Benning Cmdr and the search authorization was valid

The search authorization by the base commander was issued with probable cause. Defendant’s housing in a separate property with Ft. Benning was part of the base and was a sub-property of the Ranger school. The commander’s authority extended to it, … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Military searches | Comments Off on Army: Def’s housing was under control of the Ft. Benning Cmdr and the search authorization was valid

CA4: More than one person can have authority to issue command authorized search under Mil.R.Evid. 315(d)

Defendant was subjected to a command authorized search under Mil.R.Evid. 315(d). He argues that the definition of who is in control to authorize the search isn’t clear. Well, it isn’t, but that doesn’t mean that multiple people might not fit … Continue reading

Posted in Military searches | Comments Off on CA4: More than one person can have authority to issue command authorized search under Mil.R.Evid. 315(d)

A.F.Ct.Crim.App.: Forced catherization violated MRE 312(f) and exclusionary rule applied

Appellant was a JAG officer under medical treatment taking drugs, but those drugs interacted with alcohol and led to a DUI and a charge of being drunk on duty. A blood sample was obtained by medical personnel. Her urine, however, … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Military searches | Comments Off on A.F.Ct.Crim.App.: Forced catherization violated MRE 312(f) and exclusionary rule applied

GA: Remanded for findings on whether def consented to forensics search of his cell phone

Defendant was on the state sex offender registry, and he was subject to compliance checks. Six officers from two agencies came to his house for his compliance review and they talked to him. They were lawfully on the premises under … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Military searches, Scope of search | Comments Off on GA: Remanded for findings on whether def consented to forensics search of his cell phone

A.F.Ct.Crim.App.: Retest of inconclusive UA was reasonable

The military judge erred in suppressing the results of a second “reinspection” UA administered as a base protocol after a first UA after an AWOL come up positive, diluted, or inconclusive. It was a reasonable command imposed requirement. United States … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Military searches, Reasonableness, Seizure | Comments Off on A.F.Ct.Crim.App.: Retest of inconclusive UA was reasonable

E.D.Va.: While def’s Navy commander in CA couldn’t authorize military search on a base in VA, GFE applies

Defendant was in the Navy, and, due to a potential rape allegation against him, a pretext text message was sent to him by NCIS on behalf of the alleged victim. Defendant was stationed in San Diego, but he was in … Continue reading

Posted in Good faith exception, Military searches | Comments Off on E.D.Va.: While def’s Navy commander in CA couldn’t authorize military search on a base in VA, GFE applies

N.-M. Ct.Crim.App.: Trial judge’s findings on deterrence for exclusion lacking, so remanded

Defendant was charged in Washington state court with child pornography after he was arrested in a prostitution sting and police obtained access to his cell phone by getting his password. The state court suppressed the search of the cell phone, … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Military searches | Comments Off on N.-M. Ct.Crim.App.: Trial judge’s findings on deterrence for exclusion lacking, so remanded

Army Ct.Crim.App.: SW for evidence of sex abuse on computer didn’t include child porn

A military search warrant for evidence of “attempted sexual abuse of a child, abusive sexual contact with a child and other offenses related” did not include child pornography. When child pornography was found, another warrant was required, and CID didn’t … Continue reading

Posted in Military searches, Scope of search | Comments Off on Army Ct.Crim.App.: SW for evidence of sex abuse on computer didn’t include child porn

CA4: Feres doctrine barred Army NG officer’s § 1983 email search claim when he was deployed

Plaintiff was a Colonel in the North Carolina Army National Guard stationed in Kuwait, and he claimed that his email was unlawfully searched by another officer and forwarded around in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Feres doctrine, requiring … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Military searches | Comments Off on CA4: Feres doctrine barred Army NG officer’s § 1983 email search claim when he was deployed