U.S. v. Johnson, 87 M.J. 41

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Duties and Responsibilities

1. a military judge reviewing a commander's decision to issue a search authorization must determine whether the commander had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed; a substantial basis exists when, based on the totality of the circumstances, a common-sense judgment would lead to the conclusion that there is a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found at the identified location; the probable cause determination is inherently contextual, dependent upon the overall effect or weight of all factors presented to the commander
2. if a commander has a substantial basis to find probable cause, a military judge does not abuse his discretion in denying a motion to suppress; however, if the commander does not have a substantial basis to find probable cause, the exclusionary rule ordinarily bars admission of evidence obtained as a result of the ensuing, unlawful seizure or search

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Discretion

1. if a commander has a substantial basis to find probable cause, a military judge does not abuse his discretion in denying a motion to suppress; however, if the commander does not have a substantial basis to find probable cause, the exclusionary rule ordinarily bars admission of evidence obtained as a result of the ensuing, unlawful seizure or search
2. in this case, the military judge did not abuse his discretion when he denied appellant's suppression motion and declined to apply the exclusionary rule to the evidence obtained as a result of a search; even assuming that there was no probable cause for the search authorization, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied to admit the incriminating evidence where (1) the commander who issued the search authorization was a competent, neutral, and detached authority, (2) there was no evidence the commander was provided with false information; and (3) the commander was provided with sufficient facts to support his probable cause determination

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

1. a military judge reviewing a commander's decision to issue a search authorization must determine whether the commander had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed; a substantial basis exists when, based on the totality of the circumstances, a common-sense judgment would lead to the conclusion that there is a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found at the identified location; the probable cause determination is inherently contextual, dependent upon the overall effect or weight of all factors presented to the commander
2. if a commander has a substantial basis to find probable cause, a military judge does not abuse his discretion in denying a motion to suppress; however, if the commander does not have a substantial basis to find probable cause, the exclusionary rule ordinarily bars admission of evidence obtained as a result of the ensuing, unlawful seizure or search

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

1. if a commander has a substantial basis to find probable cause, a military judge does not abuse his discretion in denying a motion to suppress; however, if the commander does not have a substantial basis to find probable cause, the exclusionary rule ordinarily bars admission of evidence obtained as a result of the ensuing, unlawful seizure or search
2. the exclusionary rule is embodied in MRE 311(a), which provides that evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search or seizure made by a person acting in a governmental capacity is inadmissible against the accused if: (1) [t]he accused makes a timely motion to suppress or an objection to the evidence under the rule; (2) the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the person, place, or property searched; the accused had a legitimate interest in the property or evidence seized when challenging a seizure; or the accused would otherwise have grounds to object to the search or seizure under the Constitution as applied to members of the Armed Forces; and (3) 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

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

1. a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule provides that evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search or seizure is nevertheless admissible if law enforcement officers reasonably relied on a search warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate
2. (the good faith exception does not apply in circumstances involving (1) a false or reckless affidavit (where the 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, (2) lack of judicial review (where the magistrate wholly abandoned his judicial role or was a mere rubber stamp for the police), (3) a facially deficient affidavit (where the warrant was based on an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable, and (4) a facially deficient warrant (where the warrant is so facially deficient (i.e., in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized) that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid)
3. in the military justice system, the good faith exception is embodied in MRE 311(c)(3), which provides that evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search or seizure is admissible if: (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), (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
4. good faith is to be determined using an objective standard
5. under the good faith exception, even if a search authorization is unsupported by probable cause, a military judge does not abuse his discretion in concluding the evidence obtained from the search is admissible where (1) the seizure resulted from a search and seizure authorization issued, in relevant part, by a commander, (2) the commander had a substantial basis for determining probable cause existed, and (3) law enforcement reasonably and in good faith relied on the authorization
6. in this case, all three requirements of the good faith exception were satisfied where (1) the search authorization was issued by a commander competent to issue the authorization under MRE 315(d), (2) the commander authorizing the search had a substantial basis, in the eyes of a reasonable law enforcement official executing the search authorization, for concluding that probable cause existed, and (3) the law enforcement agents who sought and executed the authorization reasonably and with good faith relied on the issuance of the authorization
7. with respect to the third requirement for the good faith exception, an appellate court applies an objective standard to determine whether the officials seeking and executing the authorization or warrant reasonably and with good faith relied on the issuance of the authorization or warrant
8. the fact that a neutral commander has issued a warrant is the clearest indication that the law enforcement agents acted in an objectively reasonable manner or in objective good faith for purposes of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule; on the other hand, law enforcement agents do not act in good faith if they know that the commander merely rubber stamped their request, or when the warrant is facially defective
9. in the absence of an allegation that the commander abandoned his detached and neutral role, suppression is appropriate only if the officers were dishonest or reckless in preparing their affidavit or could not have harbored an objectively reasonable belief in the existence of probable cause
10. in this case, the military judge did not abuse his discretion when he denied appellant's suppression motion and declined to apply the exclusionary rule to the evidence obtained as a result of a search; even assuming that there was no probable cause for the search authorization, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied to admit the incriminating evidence where (1) the commander who issued the search authorization was a competent, neutral, and detached authority, (2) there was no evidence the commander was provided with false information; and (3) the commander was provided with sufficient facts to support his probable cause determination

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

1. a military judge reviewing a commander's decision to issue a search authorization must determine whether the commander had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed; a substantial basis exists when, based on the totality of the circumstances, a common-sense judgment would lead to the conclusion that there is a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be found at the identified location; the probable cause determination is inherently contextual, dependent upon the overall effect or weight of all factors presented to the commander
2. if a commander has a substantial basis to find probable cause, a military judge does not abuse his discretion in denying a motion to suppress; however, if the commander does not have a substantial basis to find probable cause, the exclusionary rule ordinarily bars admission of evidence obtained as a result of the ensuing, unlawful seizure or search

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

1. an affidavit provided to justify a search authorization must not be intentionally or recklessly false, and it must be more than a bare bones recital of conclusions

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

1. when reviewing a lower court'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. when reviewing a lower court'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
2. an appellate court reviews a military judge's ruling on a motion to suppress for abuse of discretion, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, and an abuse of discretion occurs when the military judge's 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
3. good faith is to be determined using an objective standard