Articles Posted in Search & Seizure

Here are the military justice related articles in the new Army Lawyer. Searching for Reasonableness—The Supreme Court Revisits the Fourth Amendment “I’ve Got to Admit It’s Getting Better”*: New Developments in Post-Trial The Impact of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts on Admissibility of Forensic Test Results at Courts-Martial Armed for the Attack: Recent Developments in Impeachment Evidence…

Thanks to Fourthamendement.com, here is an article about Arizona v. Gant. Arizona v. Gant: Does it Matter? by Barbara E. Armacost of the University of Virginia School of Law in 2009 S.Ct. Rev. __ (2010). And from the abstract: Prior to the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Arizona v Gant, it was standard practice under…

United States v. Clayton. Another special exception, in of course, a CP case. The dissent says it all. RYAN, J., with whom ERDMANN, J., joins (dissenting): I cannot agree with the continued dilution of the requirement that there be an actual, as opposed to an intuitive or a hypothetical, nexus between the evidence sought and…

FourthAmendment blog reports a new case: Police reports were “deceptive and deficient,” but the court believes officer without a credibility determination: Ties go to the runner, or the government. The court finds the officer deceptive and believes him anyway because of a presumption police officers tell the truth [even when their reports are “deceptive and…

United States v. Cowgill. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HER DISCRETION IN DENYING THE DEFENSE MOTION TO SUPPRESS ALL EVIDENCE FROM APPELLANT’S HOME. The two underlying point were: potential erroneous information given for a search warrant (statements were factually incorrect, but believed to be true by the detective at the time), and if there was…

Federal law should govern a federal NCIS search on a military base for evidence of a murder of a civilian employee on the base that ends up prosecuted in state court. The court finds that this is a narrow issue in this case. The security search of defendant’s car on the military base was also…

Thanks to howappealing.law.com, here is a Ohio State Supreme Court opinion in State v. Smith. The issue is warrantless searches of cell-phones. While this issue may have been raised in a court-martial, I don’t see a relevant military appellate decision. So the issue is apparently an open one for court-martial cases. Here is a link…

Ohio holds today (4-3) that a cell phone search requires a warrant without exigent circumstances. Therefore, it was not subject to a search incident. Today’s cell phones are analogous to a computer. State v. Smith, 2009 Ohio 6426 (December 15, 2009). FourthAmendment blog reports. Seems there ought to be similar results for a military search…