U.S. v. Lattin, 83 M.J. 192

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Discretion

1. a military judge abuses his or her discretion when: (1) the military judge predicates a ruling on findings of fact that are not supported by the evidence of record; (2) the military judge uses incorrect legal principles; (3) the military judge applies correct legal principles to the facts in a way that is clearly unreasonable; or (4) the military judge fails to consider important facts
2. in this case, the military judge did not abuse his discretion by declining to exclude evidence obtained and derived from an unlawful search when his determination that the deterrence of future unlawful searches would not outweigh the costs to the justice system was not clearly unreasonable; the high costs of excluding the evidence is undisputed, and while exclusion of the evidence may produce some future deterrence, the degree of this future deterrence is subject to reasonable disagreement

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

1. although the Fourth Amendment contains no provision expressly precluding the use of evidence obtained in violation of its commands, the Supreme Court created an exclusionary rule that forbids the use of improperly obtained evidence at trial; this exclusionary rule is designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect; in other words, if the government cannot use evidence that the police obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment, the police will have an incentive not to violate the Fourth Amendment
2. for the exclusionary rule to apply, the deterrent effect of suppression must be substantial and outweigh any harm to the justice system
3. MRE 311(a)(3) makes the exclusionary rule inapplicable unless exclusion of the evidence results in appreciable deterrence of future unlawful searches or seizures and the benefits of such deterrence outweigh the costs to the justice system; under MRE 311(d)(5)(A), the government has the burden of proof on this issue by a preponderance of the evidence
4. under MRE 311(a)(3), the exclusionary rule does not apply if the government either proves that the deterrence of future unlawful searches or seizures is not appreciable or proves that such deterrence does not outweigh the costs to the justice system of excluding the evidence; these two possible showings may be referred to as the appreciable deterrence test and the balancing test
5. in this case, the military judge did not abuse his discretion by declining to exclude evidence obtained and derived from an unlawful search when his determination that the deterrence of future unlawful searches would not outweigh the costs to the justice system was not clearly unreasonable; the high costs of excluding the evidence is undisputed, and while exclusion of the evidence may produce some future deterrence, the degree of this future deterrence is subject to reasonable disagreement

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

1. a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is recognized for when police obtain evidence in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant

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

1. an appellate court reviews a military judge’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence under MRE 311(a) for an abuse of discretion
2. an appellate court reviews a military judge’s balancing of relevance against prejudice under MRE 403 for an abuse of discretion
3. an appellate court will not review a military judge’s determinations under MRE 311(d)(5)(A) with respect to the appreciable deterrence test or balancing test merely for clear error; instead, a less deferential standard should apply and that the question is whether the military judge’s assessment of these matters was a clearly unreasonable exercise of discretion