U.S. v. Blackburn, 80 M.J. 205

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Generally

1. when constitutional rights are at issue, an appellate court applies a presumption against finding waiver

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Search and Seizure

1. the Fourth Amendment safeguards the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects; this protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires warrants to be supported by probable cause; absent probable cause, a court typically applies the exclusionary rule

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Discretion

1. an appellate court reviews a military judge’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence for abuse of discretion; an abuse of discretion occurs when a military judge’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous or his conclusions of law are incorrect

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

1. the Fourth Amendment safeguards the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects; this protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires warrants to be supported by probable cause; absent probable cause, a court typically applies the exclusionary rule

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

1. the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is unavailable if a magistrate was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth; although definitions of reckless disregard in this context range from sheltering obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the allegations, to withholding a fact that any reasonable person would have known was the kind of thing the judge would wish to know, reckless disregard must refer to something more than negligence
2. in this case, the accused preserved a particularized objection to the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule by alleging at trial that the government provided false information to the magistrate, even though he did not use the talismanic words “false” or “reckless disregard of the truth”; furthermore, the defense’s arguments as a whole demonstrated an accusation of at least recklessness in the search authorization request, which adequately preserved the issue on appeal, and moreover, the military judge addressed this point directly, finding no evidence that the magistrate was provided false information or recklessly disregarded the truth
3. the question whether an affiant who authors a search warrant affidavit provided evidence that was intentionally false or with a reckless disregard for the truth is a question of fact, which an appellate court reviews for clear error; this deferential standard of review is appropriate to further the Fourth Amendment’s strong preference for searches conducted pursuant to a warrant
4. (under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule in MRE 311(c)(3), the results of a search authorization in fact unsupported by probable cause will not require exclusion if: (1) the magistrate had authority to grant the request; (2) the magistrate had a substantial basis for finding probable cause; and (3) law enforcement reasonably and in good faith relied on the authorization; the second prong is met when the agents have an objectively reasonable belief that the magistrate had a substantial basis for probable cause; the third prong turns on whether the search authorization was facially defective or whether the police knew the magistrate simply rubber-stamped it); the exception is unavailable where the magistrate was misled by information law enforcement knew was false or would have known was false except for their reckless disregard of the truth)
5. in this case, the requisites for application of the good faith exception were satisfied where the magistrate was competent, law enforcement’s belief in her substantial basis for probable cause was reasonable, and she did not rubber-stamp the request; furthermore, the military judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that law enforcement did not intentionally or recklessly omit or misstate any information to the magistrate

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

1. the Fourth Amendment safeguards the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects; this protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires warrants to be supported by probable cause; absent probable cause, a court typically applies the exclusionary rule

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

1. the question whether an affiant who authors a search warrant affidavit provided evidence that was intentionally false or with a reckless disregard for the truth is a question of fact, which an appellate court reviews for clear error; this deferential standard of review is appropriate to further the Fourth Amendment’s strong preference for searches conducted pursuant to a warrant
2. the Fourth Amendment safeguards the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects; this protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires warrants to be supported by probable cause; absent probable cause, a court typically applies the exclusionary rule

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Suppression

1. suppression arguments not raised at trial are waived under MRE 311(d)(2)(A), and preservation requires a particularized objection; this requirement ensures the government has the opportunity to present relevant evidence and develop a full record for review on appeal
2. an appellate court reviews a military judge’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence for abuse of discretion; an abuse of discretion occurs when a military judge’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous or his conclusions of law are incorrect
3. in reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the party that prevailed on the motion
4. the Fourth Amendment safeguards the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects; this protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires warrants to be supported by probable cause; absent probable cause, a court typically applies the exclusionary rule

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Waiver

1. an appellate court reviews de novo whether an accused has waived an issue
2. suppression arguments not raised at trial are waived under MRE 311(d)(2)(A), and preservation requires a particularized objection; this requirement ensures the government has the opportunity to present relevant evidence and develop a full record for review on appeal
3. when constitutional rights are at issue, an appellate court applies a presumption against finding waiver
4. in this case, the accused preserved a particularized objection to the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule by alleging at trial that the government provided false information to the magistrate, even though he did not use the talismanic words “false” or “reckless disregard of the truth”; furthermore, the defense’s arguments as a whole demonstrated an accusation of at least recklessness in the search authorization request, which adequately preserved the issue on appeal, and moreover, the military judge addressed this point directly, finding no evidence that the magistrate was provided false information or recklessly disregarded the truth

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

1. when reviewing a CCA’s decision on a military judge’s ruling, the CAAF typically has pierced through that intermediate level and examined the military judge’s ruling, and then decided whether the CCA was right or wrong in its examination of the military judge’s ruling

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

1. an appellate court reviews de novo whether an accused has waived an issue
2. when constitutional rights are at issue, an appellate court applies a presumption against finding waiver
3. an appellate court reviews a military judge’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence for abuse of discretion; an abuse of discretion occurs when a military judge’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous or his conclusions of law are incorrect
4. in reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the party that prevailed on the motion
5. the question whether an affiant who authors a search warrant affidavit provided evidence that was intentionally false or with a reckless disregard for the truth is a question of fact, which an appellate court reviews for clear error; this deferential standard of review is appropriate to further the Fourth Amendment’s strong preference for searches conducted pursuant to a warrant

Trial Stages: Appeals: Waiver

1. an appellate court reviews de novo whether an accused has waived an issue
2. suppression arguments not raised at trial are waived under MRE 311(d)(2)(A), and preservation requires a particularized objection; this requirement ensures the government has the opportunity to present relevant evidence and develop a full record for review on appeal
3. when constitutional rights are at issue, an appellate court applies a presumption against finding waiver
4. in this case, the accused preserved a particularized objection to the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule by alleging at trial that the government provided false information to the magistrate, even though he did not use the talismanic words “false” or “reckless disregard of the truth”; furthermore, the defense’s arguments as a whole demonstrated an accusation of at least recklessness in the search authorization request, which adequately preserved the issue on appeal, and moreover, the military judge addressed this point directly, finding no evidence that the magistrate was provided false information or recklessly disregarded the truth