U.S. v. Leedy, 65 M.J. 208

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Discretion

1. where a magistrate had a substantial basis to find probable cause, a military judge would not abuse his discretion in denying a motion to suppress

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

1. in granting the investigator’s search authorization request of appellant’s computer, the magistrate did not simply rubber stamp that request, but acted in a neutral and detached manner, where he closely read the affidavit, questioned the investigator about the matter for more than twenty minutes and did not immediately accept his answers, and he proceeded to speak with others including the roommate’s and appellant’s commanding officer to gain further insight about whether there was any motive for the roommate to fabricate charges against appellant

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

1. where a magistrate had a substantial basis to find probable cause, a military judge would not abuse his discretion in denying a motion to suppress
2. at its core, the probable cause that a magistrate must find to authorize a search requires a factual demonstration or reason to believe that a crime has or will be committed; as the term implies, probable cause deals with probabilities; it is not a technical standard, but rather is based on the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act; probable cause requires more than bare suspicion, but something less than a preponderance of the evidence; thus, the evidence presented in support of a search need not be sufficient to support a conviction, nor even to demonstrate that an investigator’s belief is more likely true than false; there is no specific probability required, nor must the evidence lead one to believe that it is more probable than not that contraband will be present
3. probable cause determinations are inherently contextual, dependent upon the specific circumstances presented as well as on the evidence itself; indeed, probable cause is founded not on the determinative features of any particular piece of evidence provided an issuing magistrate -- nor even solely based upon the affidavit presented to a magistrate by an investigator wishing search authorization -- but rather upon the overall effect or weight of all factors presented to the magistrate
4. the facts set forth in an affidavit presented by an investigator to a magistrate to obtain a search authorization of appellant’s computer that included his roommate’s observation of a file entitled “14 year old Filipino girl” in a list of files on appellant’s computer, some of which mentioned ages and some of which mentioned acts, which led the roommate to believe the files in question contained pornography, were sufficient, when assessed through the lens of the circumstances under which the magistrate came to know this information – including the investigator’s experience investigating child pornography and the magistrate’s own, independent analysis of the facts – to provide a substantial basis for a magistrate to conclude that there was a fair probability that child pornography would be found on appellant’s computer, even though the affidavit did not contain any description of the substance of the images suspected to depict pornography and even though the roommate’s observations were one month old

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

1. the denial of a motion to suppress is a decision reviewed by an appellate court for an abuse of discretion
2. an appellate court reviews de novo the legal question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a magistrate’s finding of probable cause, using a totality of the circumstances test
3. the determination of the legal question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a magistrate’s finding of probable cause is based in large part on the facts found by the military judge, the review of which an appellate court conducts under a clearly erroneous standard; findings of fact will not be overturned unless they are clearly erroneous or unsupported by the record
4. the clearly erroneous standard is a very high one to meet; appellant does not meet the burden by suggesting that the findings are maybe or probably wrong; if there is some evidence supporting the military judge’s findings, an appellate court will not hold them arbitrary, fanciful, or clearly erroneous
5. in reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party
6. the duty of the reviewing court, in its de novo review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a magistrate’s finding of probable cause, is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place
7. there are no specific tests that must be satisfied to find that a magistrate’s decision to authorize a search had a substantial basis for probable cause; the review of a magistrate’s determination is bifurcated into two closely intertwined analyses: first, an appellate court examines the facts known to the magistrate at the time of his decision, and second, it analyzes the manner in which the facts became known to the magistrate; thus, while an appellate court’s initial inquiry rightly centers on the evidence as set out in the four corners of the requesting affidavit, this evidence may then be usefully illuminated by factors such as the veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge of the individual presenting the evidence; the magistrate then relies on these and other factors in determining the commonsense, practical question whether there was probable cause to believe that contraband is located in a particular place