U.S. v. Cote, 72 M.J. 41

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

1. the ultimate touchstone of any Fourth Amendment inquiry is always reasonableness

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

1. while technical or de minimis violations of a search warrant’s terms do not warrant suppression of evidence, generally the search and seizure conducted under a warrant must conform to the warrant or some well—recognized exception
2. even if there were no time limitation contained in a warrant for conducting an off-site search, the government nevertheless remains bound by the Fourth Amendment to the extent that all seizures must be reasonable in duration
3. the ultimate touchstone of any Fourth Amendment inquiry is always reasonableness, and mere technical or de minimis violations of a warrant’s terms are not unreasonable and do not warrant suppression
4. a search and seizure conducted under a warrant must conform to the warrant, or some well-recognized exception
5. the government’s violation of a search warrant’s 90-day time limit for conducting an off-site search of a seized electronic device over a year after the search warrant was issued constituted more than a de minimis violation of the warrant and resulted in an unreasonable search; the 90-day limitation, which was handwritten into the warrant, reflected a judicial determination that under the circumstances of this case, 90 days was a reasonable period of time in which to conduct the off-site search; in addition, the judge who issued the warrant indicated in the warrant that the 90-day limitation could be extended by the judge for good cause shown, but the government never sought an extension of time; performing a search over a year after the expiration of the search period, without following already established procedures for requesting a new warrant or an extension of the existing warrant, was not a de minimis violation, and the government failed to show any fact which would support the argument that its violation of the warrant’s terms was reasonable

Trial Stages: Writs and Interlocutory Appeals: Article 62 Appeal

1. on direct review of an issue which was previously the subject of an Article 62, UCMJ, interlocutory appeal, CAAF reviews whether the military judge’s initial decision was an abuse of discretion

Trial Stages: Appeals: Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

1. on direct review of an issue which was previously the subject of an Article 62, UCMJ, interlocutory appeal, CAAF reviews whether the military judge’s initial decision was an abuse of discretion

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; it reviews findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard and conclusions of law de novo
2. on direct review of an issue which was previously the subject of an Article 62, UCMJ, interlocutory appeal, CAAF reviews whether the military judge’s initial decision was an abuse of discretion