U.S. v. Clayton, 68 M.J. 419

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Neutral and detached

1. determinations of probable cause made by a neutral and detached magistrate are entitled to substantial deference

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

1. MRE 315(f)(2) defines probable cause as a reasonable belief that the person, property, or evidence sought is located in the place or on the person to be searched
2. determinations of probable cause made by a neutral and detached magistrate are entitled to substantial deference
3. probable cause determinations are inherently contextual, dependent upon the specific circumstances presented as well as on the evidence itself; probable cause is founded not on the determinative features of any particular piece of evidence provided an issuing magistrate, but rather upon the overall effect or weight of all factors
4. in a particular case, the contextual circumstances bearing upon the determination of whether there was probable cause to issue a search warrant may involve the timing of the determination and the nexus between the alleged criminal activity and the place searched; the question of timing focuses on the information presented to the search authority, as well as information known by the search authority, at the time the decision to search was made; the question of nexus focuses on whether there was a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place; the nexus between the items to be seized and the place to be searched need not be based on direct observation but can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a particular case; determinative factors include the type of crime, the nature of the items sought, the extent of the suspect’s opportunity for concealment, and normal inferences as to where a criminal would likely hide the property
5. the information provided to a magistrate that included (1) appellant’s membership in a website group, “Preteen-Bestiality-and-Anything-Taboo,” (2) the group’s use of the website to share child pornography and exploitation information, as admitted by other group members who had been arrested, (3) appellant’s request for digest notification, which enabled him to receive up to 25 postings automatically each day from the group to the e-mail account bearing his name, (4) the fact that the e-mail account bearing his name had been accessed by a government computer in Kuwait, and (5) the fact that appellant, who was stationed in Kuwait, had been provided with a laptop computer by the Army, was sufficient to support a practical, commonsense decision by the magistrate that there was a fair probability that contraband would be located in appellant’s quarters in view of the ease with which laptop computers are transported from work to home and the ease with which computer media may be replicated on portable devices; thus, the evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant issued by the magistrate did not have to be suppressed, even though the evidence before the magistrate did not show that appellant had posted messages to the website, participated in discussions, or uploaded or downloaded child pornography and did not indicate how long he belonged to the group, how often he accessed the website, or whether he received the digests he requested

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

1. resolution of doubtful or marginal cases should be largely determined by the preference for warrants, and close calls will be resolved in favor of sustaining the magistrate’s decision
2. courts should not invalidate warrants by interpreting affidavits in a hypertechnical, rather than a commonsense, manner
3. erroneous statement in a search warrant affidavit that child pornography had actually been located on appellant’s government computer did not constitute a significant element of the probable cause equation and did not so taint the information provided to the magistrate as to require suppression of the evidence of child pornography found during a warranted search of appellant’s quarters, where, excising this information from the affidavit, there remained more than adequate information to demonstrate that the magistrate had a substantial basis for finding that there was probable cause to search appellant’s quarters, based on (1) appellant’s membership in a website group, “Preteen-Bestiality-and-Anything-Taboo,” (2) the group’s use of the website to share child pornography and exploitation information, as admitted by other group members who had been arrested, (3) appellant’s request for digest notification, which enabled him to receive up to 25 postings automatically each day from the group to the e-mail account bearing his name, (4) the fact that the e-mail account bearing his name had been accessed by a government computer in Kuwait, and (5) the fact that appellant, who was stationed in Kuwait, had been provided with a laptop computer by the Army

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

1. an appellate court reviews a military judge’s denial of a motion to suppress for an abuse of discretion; an abuse of discretion occurs when an appellate court determines that the military judge’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous or that he misapprehended the law
2. (in addressing whether a military judge erred in denying a motion to suppress evidence of a search authorized by a magistrate, an appellate court considers whether the military judge abused his discretion when he ruled as a matter of law that there was a substantial basis for finding that probable cause existed under MRE 315(f)(2)); an appellate court reviews the legal question of sufficiency for finding probable cause de novo using a totality of the circumstance test)
3. the framework for reviewing probable cause determinations under MRE 315 focuses on four key principles: (1) determinations of probable cause made by a neutral and detached magistrate are entitled to substantial deference; (2) resolution of doubtful or marginal cases should be largely determined by the preference for warrants, and close calls will be resolved in favor of sustaining the magistrate’s decision; (3) courts should not invalidate warrants by interpreting affidavits in a hypertechnical, rather than a commonsense, manner; and (4) the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the prevailing party
4. where an affidavit submitted in support of a search warrant application included erroneous information, an appellate court, on review of the trial judge’s motion to suppress, would set aside the erroneous information in the affidavit and determine whether there remained sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause