U.S. v. Owens, 51 M.J. 204

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Search and Seizure

1. it is not a search for law enforcement officials to look into an automobile through a window or open door
2. officer had probable cause to search automobile based on knowledge of recent car burglaries and presence of large quantity of stereo equipment in automobile with wires cut short rather than disconnected
3. where there was reason to believe that appellant stole numerous items from several vehicles in the dormitory parking lot, commander had probable cause to authorize search of appellant’s dormitory room where he correctly concluded that the most logical places for appellant to store items were his automobile and dormitory room, and some items were not found in search of appellant’s automobile; MRE 315(f)(2)
4. when reviewing a commander’s decision to authorize a search, an appellate court determines whether the commander had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed
5. there are two constitutional bases for the automobile exception to the warrant requirement: (1) mobility, and (2) reduced expectation of privacy; without deciding whether an automobile must be operable at time of a search under the automobile exception, Court holds search lawful where officer did not know vehicle was inoperable and had no duty to ascertain functional capability of vehicle; MRE 315(g)(3)
6. prosecution bears burden of showing consent by clear and convincing evidence as determined by the totality of the circumstances; MRE 314(e)(5)
7. in reviewing consent to search, appellate court must be satisfied by clear and convincing evidence that subtle and implicit pressures did not overwhelm appellant’s will; review of a military judge’s determination of consent will be deferential, and the determination will not be overturned unless it is unsupported by the evidence or clearly erroneous
8. when the routine procedures of a law enforcement agency would inevitably find the same evidence, the rule of inevitable discovery applies even in the absence of a prior or parallel investigation; MRE 311(b)(2)
9. where item of stolen property was voluntarily surrendered by appellant’s roommate, appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because appellant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his roommate’s portion of the room or his roommate’s property; MRE 311(a)(2)

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Generally

1. it is not a search for law enforcement officials to look into an automobile through a window or open door

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Automobile exception

1. there are two constitutional bases for the automobile exception to the warrant requirement: (1) mobility, and (2) reduced expectation of privacy; without deciding whether an automobile must be operable at time of a search under the automobile exception, Court holds search lawful where officer did not know vehicle was inoperable and had no duty to ascertain functional capability of vehicle; MRE 315(g)(3)

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Commanders

1. when reviewing a commander’s decision to authorize a search, an appellate court determines whether the commander had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Consent

1. prosecution bears burden of showing consent by clear and convincing evidence as determined by the totality of the circumstances; MRE 314(e)(5)
2. in reviewing consent to search, appellate court must be satisfied by clear and convincing evidence that subtle and implicit pressures did not overwhelm appellant’s will; review of a military judge’s determination of consent will be deferential, and the determination will not be overturned unless it is unsupported by the evidence or clearly erroneous

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Derivative evidence

1. because items previously seized during searches of appellant’s automobile were admissible, there was no taint to the commander’s authorization to search appellant’s dormitory room

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Expectations of privacy

1. where item of stolen property was voluntarily surrendered by appellant’s roommate, appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because appellant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his roommate’s portion of the room or his roommate’s property; MRE 311(a)(2)

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Inevitable discovery

1. when the routine procedures of a law enforcement agency would inevitably find the same evidence, the rule of inevitable discovery applies even in the absence of a prior or parallel investigation; MRE 311(b)(2)

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Probable cause

1. officer had probable cause to search automobile based on knowledge of recent car burglaries and presence of large quantity of stereo equipment in automobile with wires cut short rather than disconnected
2. where there was reason to believe that appellant stole numerous items from several vehicles in the dormitory parking lot, commander had probable cause to authorize search of appellant’s dormitory room where he correctly concluded that the most logical places for appellant to store items were his automobile and dormitory room, and some items were not found in search of appellant’s automobile; MRE 315(f)(2)

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. a military judge’s evidentiary rulings admitting evidence are reviewed for abuse of discretion; supporting findings of fact will not be overturned unless they are clearly erroneous; conclusions of law will be reviewed de novo; thus, a military judge abuses his discretion when his findings of fact are clearly erroneous or if his decision is influenced by an erroneous view of the law
2. in reviewing consent to search, appellate court must be satisfied by clear and convincing evidence that subtle and implicit pressures did not overwhelm appellant’s will; review of a military judge’s determination of consent will be deferential, and the determination will not be overturned unless it is unsupported by the evidence or clearly erroneous

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. when reviewing a commander’s decision to authorize a search, an appellate court determines whether the commander had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed