U.S. v. White, 80 M.J. 322

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
2. in this case, the military judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that probable cause did not exist under MRE 311(a)(1) to support a command authorization for search and seizure of appellant’s home for evidence of child pornography where the three assertions made in the affidavit supporting the authorization failed to establish probable cause that evidence of child pornography or child exploitation would be found in appellant’s home; the military judge’s findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, he was not influenced by an erroneous view of the law, and his decision on the issue was not outside the range of choices reasonably arising from the applicable facts and the law
3. in this case, the military judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that the government failed to establish that the individual issuing the search authorization had a substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause and in concluding that the good faith exception to an unlawful search and seizure in MRE 311(c)(3) did not apply; the military judge reasonably decided that the information provided to the commander who authorized the search and seizure was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that it was objectively unreasonable to believe solely on the basis of this information that probable cause existed

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

1. the good faith exception in MRE 311(c)(3) provides that evidence that was obtained as a result of an unlawful search or seizure may be used if three conditions are met: (1) the search or seizure resulted from an authorization to search, seize, or apprehend issued by an individual competent to issue the authorization under MRE 315(d) (commander, military judge, or magistrate) or from a search warrant or arrest warrant issued by competent civilian authority, (2) the individual issuing the authorization or warrant had a substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause, and (3) the officials seeking and executing the authorization or warrant reasonably and with good faith relied on the issuance of the authorization or warrant, and good faith is to be determined using an objective standard; the second condition is satisfied if the law enforcement official had an objectively reasonable belief that the commander, military judge, or magistrate had a substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause; this condition cannot be satisfied if the materials presented to the commander, military judge, or magistrate issuing the search and seizure authorization are so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable
2. the good-faith inquiry is confined to the objectively ascertainable question whether a reasonably well trained officer would have known that the search was illegal in light of all of the circumstances
3. reasonable reliance on the advice of counsel, depending on the circumstances, may make a belief in the existence of probable cause reasonable even if the advice of counsel ultimately turns out to be incorrect
4. the good faith exception requires more than honesty and conscientiousness from a criminal investigator; the exception requires an objectively reasonable belief that the commander who authorized the search and seizure had a substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause
5. in this case, the military judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that the government failed to establish that the individual issuing the search authorization had a substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause and in concluding that the good faith exception to an unlawful search and seizure in MRE 311(c)(3) did not apply; the military judge reasonably decided that the information provided to the commander who authorized the search and seizure was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that it was objectively unreasonable to believe solely on the basis of this information that probable cause existed

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

1. probable cause for a search and seizure authorization exists if the totality of the circumstances establish a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found at the identified location
2. probable cause does not require officers to rule out a suspect’s innocent explanation for suspicious facts
3. a person’s mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give rise to probable cause to search that person
4. in this case, the military judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that probable cause did not exist under MRE 311(a)(1) to support a command authorization for search and seizure of appellant’s home for evidence of child pornography where the three assertions made in the affidavit supporting the authorization failed to establish probable cause that evidence of child pornography or child exploitation would be found in appellant’s home; the military judge’s findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, he was not influenced by an erroneous view of the law, and his decision on the issue was not outside the range of choices reasonably arising from the applicable facts and the law

Trial Stages: Writs and Interlocutory Appeals: Article 62 Appeal

1. when the CAAF reviews cases that were initially appealed under Article 62, UCMJ, CAAF Rule 21(c)(1) does not afford parties the opportunity to file briefs; instead, it considers the arguments that appellant makes in the supplement to his petition for review and appellee’s answer to the petition
2. in both an Article 62, UCMJ, appeal, and any review of a ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party that prevailed on the motion at trial

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

1. an appellate court reviews a military judge’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence for an abuse of discretion
2. in both an Article 62, UCMJ, appeal, and any review of a ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party that prevailed on the motion at trial