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:…
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,…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…