U.S. v. Darnall, 76 M.J. 326

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Derivative evidence

1. evidence derivative of an unlawful search, seizure, or interrogation is commonly referred to as the fruit of the poisonous tree and is generally not admissible at trial
2. evidence derived from appellant’s cell phone and from his first and second interviews with law enforcement agents following his illegal apprehension was fruit of the poisonous tree and thus should have been suppressed at his court-martial for drug-related charges; there were no intervening factors sufficient to attenuate the taint of the illegal apprehension on the evidence derived from the phone or from the first or second interviews
3. in testing for causal connection between an illegal arrest and a subsequent confession, factors that should be considered include the temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession, the presence of intervening circumstances, and, particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct; in this case, the initial interview took place directly following the arrest, with no intervening circumstances, and the second interview held the next day was best characterized as an extension of the first rather than a fresh start; and finally, the agents actions were unwise, avoidable, and unlawful

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Exclusionary rule

1. the exclusionary rule cannot be expected, and should not be applied, to deter objectively reasonable law enforcement activity; however, in this case, the law enforcement activity was not objectively reasonable, but rather a somewhat sloppy and apathetic investigation conducted in clear violation of appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Good faith exception

1. the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies in cases where the official executing the warrant relied on the magistrate’s probable cause determination and the technical sufficiency of the warrant, and that reliance was objectively reasonable; however, in this case, the government failed to meet its burden of establishing the good faith doctrine

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Search and Seizure › Inevitable discovery

1. the inevitable discovery doctrine is contained in MRE 311(b)(2), and it provides that evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search or seizure may be used when the evidence would have been obtained even if such unlawful search or seizure had not been made; to take advantage of this doctrine, the prosecution must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that when the illegality occurred, the government agents possessed, or were actively pursuing, evidence or leads that would have inevitably led to the discovery of the evidence and that the evidence would inevitably have been discovered in a lawful manner had not the illegality occurred; however, in this case, although there was further evidence against appellant that may have arisen in the course of the investigation independent of his wrongfully obtained admissions to law enforcement, when law enforcement agents arrested appellant, they were not actively pursuing this evidence.

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

1. probable cause requires more than bare suspicion, but something less than a preponderance of the evidence; to determine whether an officer had probable cause to arrest an individual, the events leading up to the arrest are examined and then a decision is made as to whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to probable cause; probable cause is measured at the moment the arrest occurs and must derive from facts and circumstances based on reasonably trustworthy information
2. law enforcement agents lacked probable cause to apprehend appellant based upon the following facts: (1) that Customs and Border Control agents seized a package mailed from China containing more than two pounds of dimethylone, a Schedule I controlled substance analogue; (2) that the package was addressed to Brandon Darnall at a rental property address in the town of Twentynine Palms in San Bernardino County, California, which is home to MCAGCC, Twentynine Palms; (3) that there were only three Brandon Darnalls located in the entirety of San Bernardino County; (4) that appellant was the only Brandon Darnall of the three who was a servicemember; and (5) that appellant was stationed aboard MCAGCC, Twentynine Palms; the fact that the package was rerouted by the agents to appellant’s regimental mailroom, appellant was summoned to retrieve it, and he did so did not in any way confirm appellant’s involvement to a degree significant enough to establish probable cause

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 the military judge’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous or he misapprehended the law; the court reviews the legal question of sufficiency for finding probable cause de novo using a totality of the circumstances test, and it considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party; however, when there are misstatements or improperly obtained information, the court severs that information and examines the remainder to determine if probable cause still exists