U.S. v. Conklin, 63 M.J. 333

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

1. evidence derivative of an unlawful search, seizure, or interrogation is commonly referred to as the fruit of the poisonous tree and is generally not admissible at trial
2. although initial entry into appellant’s room was a valid military inspection to ensure unit fitness and proper standards, after an inspector inadvertently disturbed the keyboard of appellant’s personal computer causing the monitor to activate and reveal a wallpaper containing an image of a partially nude woman, a subsequent examination of computer files on the computer that were not in plain view exceeded the authorized purpose and scope of the inspection; because an individual sharing a two-person dormitory room has a reasonable expectation of privacy in files kept on a personally owned computer, the subsequent examination was an unlawful search
3. the test used in evaluating the question of a reasonable expectation of privacy is a twofold requirement: (1) a person must exhibit an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, (2) the expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable
4. an individual sharing a two-person dormitory room has a reasonable expectation of privacy in files kept on a personally owned computer; such an individual has a subjective expectation of privacy in the files stored on the hard drive of his computer and military society would recognize such an expectation as reasonable
5. the fundamental purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter improper law enforcement conduct

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

1. the granting of consent to search may sufficiently attenuate the taint of a prior constitutional violation; however, if an accused’s consent, albeit voluntary, is determined to have been obtained through exploitation of the illegal entry, it can not be said to be sufficiently attenuated from the taint of that entry
2. to determine whether an accused’s consent was an independent act of free will, breaking the causal chain between the consent and a prior constitutional violation, three factors are considered: (1) the temporal proximity of the illegal conduct and the consent; (2) the presence of intervening circumstances; and (3) the purpose and the flagrancy of the initial misconduct
3. appellant’s consent to search did not cure the prior constitutional violation where (1) in terms of the temporal proximity of the illegal conduct and the consent, less than three hours elapsed; (2) there were no intervening circumstances sufficient to remove the taint from the initial illegal search; and (3) the exploitation of the information obtained from the illegal search was flagrant even if the search itself was not

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

1. the test used in evaluating the question of a reasonable expectation of privacy is a twofold requirement: (1) a person must exhibit an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, (2) the expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable
2. to determine whether an accused’s consent was an independent act of free will, breaking the causal chain between the consent and a prior constitutional violation, three factors are considered: (1) the temporal proximity of the illegal conduct and the consent; (2) the presence of intervening circumstances; and (3) the purpose and the flagrancy of the initial misconduct