- where the defense moves to suppress evidence obtained from an unlawful search or seizure under MRE 311, the prosecution may defeat the motion by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the deterrence of future unlawful searches or seizures is not appreciable or such deterrence does not outweigh the costs to the justice system of excluding the evidence
CAAF Opinion Digest · III.C.37 · Evidence
Suppression
5 digested opinions, 2006–2024 Terms
2024 (October Term)
2019 (October Term)
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
2012 (September Term)
- the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution
- the failure of the trial counsel to disclose evidence that is favorable to the defense on the issue of guilt or sentencing violates an accused’s constitutional right to due process; an appellate court reviews all such cases for harmless error - whether there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding would have been different
2007
- MRE 311(d)(2)(A) requires that motions to suppress evidence be made by the defense prior to submission of a plea; the general rule is that a failure to make the motion prior to the plea constitutes a waiver of the motion or objection; the only exception is if good cause is shown by the moving party; no good cause exists when the moving party knew or could have known about the evidence in question before the deadline
2006
- deviating from a regulation or instruction which sets out procedures for collecting, transmitting, or testing urine samples does not render a sample inadmissible as a matter of law; however, such deviation may be considered along with all other factors in determining if the evidence lacks sufficient reliability to be considered by the finders of fact; the military judge may exclude drug-test results if he finds there has been a substantial violation of regulations intended to assure reliability of the testing procedures
Source and status
This is a verbatim mirror of the Opinion Digest and opinions tables published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The headnotes are the court staff’s summaries of the opinions, reproduced as published; they are not the opinions themselves and not this site’s commentary. Nothing here is edited on this site.
Last updated by the court: Oct 13, 2026 · mirrored Oct 29, 2026 · digest page IIIC37 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).