U.S. v. Carter, 54 M.J. 414

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

1. in reviewing probable cause determinations, courts must look at the information made known to the authorizing official at the time of his decision; the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the prevailing party
2. the duty of a court reviewing a probable cause determination is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding the probable cause existed; such a determination by a neutral and detached magistrate is entitled to substantial deference; resolution of doubtful or marginal cases should be largely determined by the preference for warrants with close calls being resolved in favor of sustaining the magistrate’s decision
3. although a probable cause determination by a neutral and detached magistrate is entitled to substantial deference, there are three exceptions to this rule of deference: (1) the deference accorded to a magistrate’s finding of probably cause does not preclude inquiry into the knowing or reckless falsity of the affidavit on which that determination was based; (2) the magistrate must perform his neutral and detached function and not serve merely as a rubber stamp for the police; and (3) reviewing courts will not defer to a warrant based on an affidavit that does not provide the magistrate with a substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause

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

1. a military judge’s decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion
2. in reviewing probable cause determinations, courts must look at the information made known to the authorizing official at the time of his decision; the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the prevailing party
3. the duty of a court reviewing a probable cause determination is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding the probable cause existed; such a determination by a neutral and detached magistrate is entitled to substantial deference; resolution of doubtful or marginal cases should be largely determined by the preference for warrants with close calls being resolved in favor of sustaining the magistrate’s decision