CAAF Opinion Digest · one opinion, every topic
U.S. v. Fogg, 52 M.J. 144
Decided Sep 30, 1999 · No. 98-0910/MC · 1999 Term · Opinion (PDF)
Digested under 2 topics
First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Search and Seizure
- reviewing a motion to suppress videotape seized under a warrant which authorized seizure of “crack cocaine, packaging and repackaging equipment, papers proving occupancy, records, weapons, papers, RF detectors, photos, cellular phone[s], police scanners, scales/paraphernalia”, court holds that there was a valid warranted seizure of the videotape which was covered by the scope of the search warrant because: (1) officers executing warrants are often required to exercise realistic, common-sense judgment, and they are not obliged to interpret a warrant narrowly; and, (2) videotape fell within the scope of the warrant which authorized the seizure of “photographs”
Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Warrants
- reviewing a motion to suppress videotape seized under a warrant which authorized seizure of “crack cocaine, packaging and repackaging equipment, papers proving occupancy, records, weapons, papers, RF detectors, photos, cellular phone[s], police scanners, scales/paraphernalia”, court holds that there was a valid warranted seizure of the videotape which was covered by the scope of the search warrant because: (1) officers executing warrants are often required to exercise realistic, common-sense judgment, and they are not obliged to interpret a warrant narrowly; and, (2) videotape fell within the scope of the warrant which authorized the seizure of “photographs”
Source and status
This is a verbatim mirror of the Opinion Digest and opinions tables published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The headnotes are the court staff’s summaries of the opinions, reproduced as published; they are not the opinions themselves and not this site’s commentary. Nothing here is edited on this site.
Last updated by the court: Oct 13, 2026 · mirrored Oct 29, 2026 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).