U.S. v. Michael, 66 M.J. 78

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Search and Seizure

1. the Fourth Amendment does not protect against all searches; rather, it proscribes only unreasonable searches; the ultimate standard set forth in the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness; for the purposes of military law, a Fourth Amendment search is a government intrusion into an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy

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

1. the Fourth Amendment does not protect against all searches; rather, it proscribes only unreasonable searches; the ultimate standard set forth in the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness; for the purposes of military law, a Fourth Amendment search is a government intrusion into an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Expectations of privacy

1. it is well settled that a person retains no expectation of privacy in abandoned property
2. mislaid property is that which is intentionally put into a certain place and later forgotten; in this case, the military judge’s findings indicate that under the circumstances of its recovery, a laptop computer found in a barracks lavatory could appropriately have been characterized as mislaid property; while an owner retains some expectation of privacy in lost or mislaid property, that interest is outweighed by the interest of law enforcement officials in identifying and returning such property to the owner; presumably, the owner of valuable mislaid property anticipates and hopes that if the mislaid property is found it will be turned in to authorities; similarly, he expects that authorities will make reasonable efforts to determine the identity of the owner and keep the property safe until its return to him
3. resolution of the issue of a search of mislaid property necessarily requires a weighing of the governmental interests at stake against the constitutionally protected interest of the servicemember in the privacy of his effects
4. the reasonableness of any particular governmental activity does not necessarily or invariably turn on the existence of alternative less intrusive means
5. whether a military instructor’s search of a mislaid laptop computer was reasonable or unreasonable does not hinge on whether less intrusive means were available; rather, it depends on whether appellant had a subjective (actual) expectation of privacy in the property searched that was objectively reasonable; this in turn depends, in part, on the location of the property searched; the threshold of a barracks/dormitory room does not provide the same sanctuary as the threshold of a private room; the same can be said of a public restroom; the reasonableness of the search also depends on the nature and scope of the governmental intrusion
6. in this case, a military training instructor’s search of a mislaid laptop computer in order to determine the identity of its owner was reasonable at least up to the point that the instructor powered it up and performed a cursory examination of folders likely to reveal the owner’s identity; appellant possessed a diminished expectation of privacy in his personal computer that was mislaid in a common area; further, the legitimate governmental interest in identifying the owner of mislaid property and safekeeping it until its return to the owner outweighed the interest appellant retained in his mislaid and subsequently found laptop

Trial Stages: Writs and Interlocutory Appeals: Article 62 Appeal

1. when reviewing evidentiary rulings under Article 62, UCMJ, an appellate court applies an abuse of discretion standard; a military judge abuses his discretion if his findings of fact are clearly erroneous or his conclusions of law are incorrect

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

1. a military judge’s decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard; a military judge abuses his discretion if his findings of fact are clearly erroneous or his conclusions of law are incorrect