Cal.1st: Military search authorization by base commander was sufficient for civilian court

M.R.E. 315(f)(1) search authorization for Air Force member’s dorm room was presented by affidavit for a search warrant, and the base commander authorized the search which could be used in civilian court. The base commander’s authority was sufficient under the Fourth Amendment. People v. Jasmin, 167 Cal. App. 4th 98, 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 19 (1st Dist. 2008):

Although scant California authority exists discussing the constitutional legitimacy of military searches, cases from other jurisdictions indicate that it is hardly a novel proposition. (See Chapman, supra, 954 F.2d at pp. 1367–1371; United States v. Brown, supra, 784 F.2d at pp. 1036–1037; United States v. Banks (9th Cir. 1976) 539 F.2d 14, 16–17; Wallis v. O’Kier (10th Cir. 1974) 491 F.2d 1323, 1324–1325; United States v. Grisby (4th Cir. 1964) 335 F.2d 652, 656; U.S. v. Reppert, supra, 76 F.Supp.2d at p. 189; United States v. Rogers (E.D.Va. 1975) 388 F.Supp. 298, 302; People v. Coit (Colo.Ct.App. 1997) 961 P.2d 524, 527–528; State v. Long (1978) 37 N.C.App. 662, 667 [246 S.E.2d 846, 850].) Indeed, we are unaware of any cases holding military authorizations to search as unconstitutional. Since there is no evidence that the search was not supported by probable cause or that Colonel Patrick was so involved in the investigation of the crimes that his neutrality was compromised, the search complied with the Fourth Amendment.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.