U.S. v. Irizarry, 72 M.J. 100

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Search and Seizure

1. a Fourth Amendment “search” only occurs when the government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable
2. the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit all warrantless searches, only those that are unreasonable; whether a search is unreasonable is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, depending on the facts and circumstances of each situation; with few exceptions, the warrantless search of a home is unreasonable

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Discretion

1. 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

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

1. a Fourth Amendment “search” only occurs when the government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable
2. the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit all warrantless searches, only those that are unreasonable; whether a search is unreasonable is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, depending on the facts and circumstances of each situation; with few exceptions, the warrantless search of a home is unreasonable

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

1. a Fourth Amendment “search” only occurs when the government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable
2. the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit all warrantless searches, only those that are unreasonable; whether a search is unreasonable is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, depending on the facts and circumstances of each situation; with few exceptions, the warrantless search of a home is unreasonable
3. appellant’s command representatives did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights when they entered his off-base apartment without a warrant at the behest of his landlord after appellant stopped paying rent, was in default of his lease agreement, and the landlord discovered unsanitary conditions inside the apartment while checking to see if appellant had abandoned it; although appellant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his apartment and a “search” under the Fourth Amendment occurred, the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit all warrantless searches, only those that are “unreasonable”; once appellant failed to pay his rent, a reasonable reading of the lease terms permitted the landlord to enter, and once the landlord discovered damages, it was reasonable for him to take action to minimize the damages and seek prompt restitution by the quickest and least intrusive manner, including contacting appellant’s command representatives; and the command representatives acted reasonably where they did not enter for a law enforcement or even a regulatory purpose, but instead entered at the behest of the landlord to effectuate their command functions of protecting appellant’s interests by minimizing possible adverse consequences to appellant, such as loss of his living quarters and overcharging for damages to his apartment, and of maintaining good relations with the local community by assisting a landlord who did not want to pursue civil legal remedies against a military member; by failing to pay his rent, damaging the apartment, and failing to respond to his landlord’s inquiries, appellant significantly diminished his expectation of privacy in the apartment
4. under Texas law, an accused can knowingly and voluntarily contract to allow third parties to enter a space where the accused has a reasonable expectation of privacy
5. where command representatives entered a subordinate’s off-base residence at the behest of the landlord and without a warrant (1) in order to effectuate their command responsibilities, and (2) with no law enforcement purpose and no expectation that a crime had been committed, or that evidence would be found, it would be unreasonable to expect command representatives to seek a warrant prior to entering; where, as here, attempting to obtain a warrant is impracticable, and does not further the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, it is unnecessary to try to get a warrant and the absence of one does not render a search unreasonable
6. where (1) command representatives are performing a command function; (2) a reasonable reading of the lease terms permits the landlord to enter; (3) military officials entered the premises at the behest of the landlord; and (4) the purpose of the entry is not for law enforcement purposes or a mere pretext for conducting a warrantless search, an exception to the warrant requirement because the “search” is reasonable makes eminent sense; under the circumstances of this case, the NCOs intrusion into Appellant’s apartment was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and the military judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to suppress a military aircraft part found in plain view

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

1. an appellate court reviews a military judge’s ruling on a motion to suppress for abuse of discretion

Miscellaneous Matters: Statutes, Treaties, Regulations, Executive Orders, Directives, etc.: State Laws / Statutes

1. under Texas law, an accused can knowingly and voluntarily contract to allow third parties to enter a space where the accused has a reasonable expectation of privacy