U.S. v. Ayala, 69 M.J. 63

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

1. evidence obtained from an inspection conducted in accordance with MRE 313 is admissible at trial when relevant and not otherwise inadmissible under the MREs; an inspection is an examination of the whole or part of a unit, organization, or installation conducted as an incident of command, the primary purpose of which is to determine and to ensure the security, military fitness, or good order and discipline of the unit, organization, or installation; an examination made for the primary purpose of obtaining evidence for use in a trial by court-martial or in other disciplinary proceedings is not an inspection within the meaning of MRE 313
2. a wing commander’s policy memorandum to his command stating that his purpose in ordering a follow-up urinalysis to a previous positive drug test was to ensure security, military fitness, and good order and discipline, a policy subsequently reaffirmed in an affidavit, established that such a reexamination was a lawful inspection in accordance with MRE 313(b)’s definition of an inspection, despite the fact that the SJA had proposed the policy to increase the likelihood of conviction; appellant offered no objection to the admission of the wing commander’s affidavit; if appellant had desired to further test the purpose of the policy, he could have sought to depose the wing commander or demand his presence at trial so he would be subject to cross-examination; he did not do so, and he did not present any other evidence showing that the examination’s purpose was other than the one announced by the wing commander; as such, the military judge’s finding that the government had proved by clear and convincing evidence that the examination was conducted to ensure the security, military fitness, and good order and discipline of the wing was not clearly erroneous, and that being the case, the military judge did not err in finding that appellant’s follow-up urinalyses were conducted for a permissible purpose

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

1. the military judge’s finding regarding the primary purpose of an inspection is a matter of fact and the issue of whether the examination is an inspection is a matter of law that an appellate court will review de novo; purpose and intent are themselves classic questions of fact
2. although the commander’s stated purpose of conducting an examination is not dispositive of the issue, the primary purpose of an examination is solely dependent upon the intent of the person who ordered it; this is a question of historical fact for the military judge to determine and which an appellate court reviews for clear error