U.S. v. Miller, 66 M.J. 306

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

1. evidence obtained from a military inspection is admissible at trial when relevant and not otherwise inadmissible under the Military Rules of Evidence
2. the authority to order an inspection under MRE 313 is directly tied to a commander’s inherent authority; it is the connection with command authority, and the commander’s responsibility to ensure fitness of a unit, that keeps a valid inspection scheme within constitutional parameters, and is important in justifying the reasonableness of what is otherwise a warrantless search
3. a urinalysis test that was the product of an order issued by a civilian Air Reserve Technician who did not have command authority to issue the order was not incident to command, did not comply with MRE 313, and was an unlawful search; accordingly, that urinalysis and the resulting confession, which was the fruit of the unlawful search, must be suppressed

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

1. the authority to order an inspection under MRE 313 is directly tied to a commander’s inherent authority; it is the connection with command authority, and the commander’s responsibility to ensure fitness of a unit, that keeps a valid inspection scheme within constitutional parameters, and is important in justifying the reasonableness of what is otherwise a warrantless search
2. a valid inspection is conducted as an incident of command
3. a urinalysis test that was the product of an order issued by a civilian Air Reserve Technician who did not have command authority to issue the order was not incident to command, did not comply with MRE 313, and was an unlawful search; accordingly, that urinalysis and the resulting confession, which was the fruit of the unlawful search, must be suppressed

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

1. an appellate court reviews a military judge’s decision to suppress or admit evidence for an abuse of discretion; a military judge abuses his discretion when his findings of fact are clearly erroneous, the court’s decision is influenced by an erroneous view of the law, or the military judge’s decision on the issue at hand is outside the range of choices reasonably arising from the applicable facts and the law