U.S. v. Flores, 64 M.J. 451

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

1. evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search is inadmissible against an accused who makes a timely motion or objection establishing a reasonable expectation of privacy in the person, place, or property searched; an accused bears the burden of demonstrating a subjective expectation of privacy which is objectively reasonable
2. an accused has no privacy interest in voluntarily abandoned property, and lacks standing to complain of the search or seizure of such property; if, however, a person discards articles in reaction to illegal police conduct, such action does not deprive the individual of the right to object to the illegitimacy of the police action in searching or seizing those articles
3. the military judge’s finding that appellant voluntarily abandoned his bag by switching bags with another recruit before a search was ordered was not clearly erroneous when the evidence was viewed in the light most favorable to the government; because the military judge properly determined that appellant abandoned his bag voluntarily and not in response to the allegedly illegal police conduct, appellant did not carry his burden at the motion hearing or on appeal of demonstrating that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the bag; accordingly, appellant lacked standing to challenge the validity of the search or the admission of derivative evidence, including his confession

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Burdens, Standards, Presumptions, Inferences: Trial Burdens, Standards › Generally

1. evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search is inadmissible against an accused who makes a timely motion or objection establishing a reasonable expectation of privacy in the person, place, or property searched; an accused bears the burden of demonstrating a subjective expectation of privacy which is objectively reasonable
2. the military judge’s finding that appellant voluntarily abandoned his bag by switching bags with another recruit before a search was ordered was not clearly erroneous when the evidence was viewed in the light most favorable to the government; because the military judge properly determined that appellant abandoned his bag voluntarily and not in response to the allegedly illegal police conduct, appellant did not carry his burden at the motion hearing or on appeal of demonstrating that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the bag; accordingly, appellant lacked standing to challenge the validity of the search or the admission of derivative evidence, including his confession

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

1. an appellate court reviews a military judge’s denial of a motion to suppress for abuse of discretion; findings of fact are reviewed for clear error, while conclusions of law are reviewed de novo; the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party
2. the military judge’s finding that appellant voluntarily abandoned his bag by switching bags with another recruit before a search was ordered was not clearly erroneous when the evidence was viewed in the light most favorable to the government; because the military judge properly determined that appellant abandoned his bag voluntarily and not in response to the allegedly illegal police conduct, appellant did not carry his burden at the motion hearing or on appeal of demonstrating that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the bag; accordingly, appellant lacked standing to challenge the validity of the search or the admission of derivative evidence, including his confession