D.D.C.: Exigent circumstances supported search of backpack at foreign Navy base for classified document

Defendant was a civilian working at a small Naval installation in Bahrain, and it was suspected that he had wrongfully accessed classified information and printed a paper and put it in his backpack. The backpack was searched, and it was recovered. What he was indicted for, apparently among other things, was concealment or removal of a record under § 2071. The court wrestles with, and doesn’t decide, whether a person not in the military working on a military base is subject to search under the visitor search warning on the signs outside or under the Military Rules of Evidence. Instead, the court goes to exigent circumstances to recover a classified document, and it finds there was. United States v. Hitselberger, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27792 (D. D.C. March 5, 2014),* later opinion 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39744 (D. D.C. March 26, 2014).*

The GPS unit in this case was installed in 2006, so 2012’s Jones decision did not apply to it. It was also by the consent of the owner. United States v. Brown, 744 F.3d 474 (7th Cir. 2014)

Defendant’s co-tenant had either authority to consent or apparent authority, and it was reasonable to rely on it. United States v. Hernandez, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27866 (N.D. Ga. March 5, 2014),* R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185746 (N.D. Ga. December 13, 2013).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.