You have rights

The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Military defense counsel advised a client in trouble under the UCMJ will know about the right to silence and counsel.

1. Fifth Amendment Rights & Article 31, UCMJ — Overview

Fifth Amendment

Guarantees the right against self-incrimination in both civilian and military contexts.
Under Miranda v. Arizona, custodial interrogation requires warnings regarding the right to remain silent and to counsel; any waiver must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent Daniel Conway & Associates+1U.S. Department of Defense+1U.S. Department of Defense+6Military Justice Attorneys+6Aaron Meyer Law+6U.S. Department of Defense.

Article 31, UCMJ

Established to protect service members from compelled self-incrimination.
Article 31(b) mandates that anyone subject to the UCMJ must be informed prior to interrogation of:
1. Nature of the accusation,
2. Right to remain silent, and
3. That statements may be used in court-martial Military Justice Attorneys+1Aaron Meyer Law+1militarytrialdefenders.com+6Daniel Conway & Associates+6Aaron Meyer Law+6Aaron Meyer Law.
Applies regardless of custody; its scope covers all interrogations by military authority or those acting on its behalf Malmstrom Air Force Base+5Military Justice Attorneys+5U.S. Department of Defense+5.
Remedies: Violation of Article 31(b) or (d) leads to suppression of statements or evidence obtained through coercion or improper influence Military Justice Attorneys+3Aaron Meyer Law+3Daniel Conway & Associates+3.

2. Summary of United States v. Reimonenq (USCG CCA, June 2025)

A Coast Guard sailor, Damage Controlman Third Class Reimonenq, was the subject of both command interactions and a formal CGIS interview.

Key Facts

Interrogated by shipmates and CGIS after a command-directed mental health evaluation/action.
CO ordered no-consent search, conducted by BMC CJ; statements made without warnings.
CGIS gave Article 31(b) warnings—and admitted an earlier misleading statement (“not suspecting you of anything”).
Despite an explicit request for counsel and subsequent waiver form, Reimonenq’s statements were suppressed.

Legal Findings

Custodial Status: The CCA concluded he was in custody—restraints over movement, personal items seized, isolation with a guard—triggering Fifth Amendment protections harnish.law+5U.S. Department of Defense+5Military Justice Attorneys+5.
Invalid Waiver:
- The CGIS advisement included misleading remarks undermining his understanding.
- No “cleansing warning” was given to offset earlier unsanctioned statements.
- Reimonenq’s intellectual limitations, custodial conditions, and disregard for invocation of counsel further invalidated the waiver.
- His waiver was held not “knowing and intelligent” under both Article 31(d) and the Fifth Amendment U.S. Department of Defense.

Outcome

The Court affirmed suppression of his CGIS statements and denied government appeal under Article 62—finding no abuse of discretion or misapplication of law .

3. ⚖️ Comparative Analysis: Rights vs. Reimonenq

Right/Requirement	Constitutional / UCMJ Standard	Reimonenq Case Application
Pre‑interrogation warnings	Article 31(b): duty to inform	CGIS did warn, but command interview lacked any advisement.
Custody for Miranda	Miranda/Mil. R. Evid. 304: custody required	CCA found conditions imposing custody—Third Amendment right triggered.
Invocation of counsel	Both require cessation after request	Reimonenq clearly requested counsel, but questioning persisted.
Voluntariness of waiver	Waiver must be informed & voluntary	Court weighed misleading statements, intellectual capacity, and coercive setting—not voluntary.
Admissibility of statements	Improper waiver → suppression	CGIS statements suppressed; partial others ok under public safety.

4. Legal Implications & Analysis

Article 31(b) and Fifth Amendment protections operate in tandem. Custodial or not, service members must be adequately warned before any incriminating questioning.
Reimonenq highlights that mistakes or misrepresentations (e.g. “we’re not suspecting you”) can fatally undermine a rights advisement and subsequent waiver—more than just technical “warnings.”
The case underscores the importance of resolving custody status—if the subject feels deprived of freedom, Miranda applies, bringing Miranda’s stricter requirements.
Invocation of counsel must be “scrupulously honored.” Continued questioning—even under waiver form—without proper cessation or counsel raises substantial due process violations.
Service member vulnerabilities—including intellectual limitations or distress due to command-directed evaluations—must be assessed: waiver is fact-specific and cannot presume sophistication or comprehension.

Conclusion

United States v. Reimonenq reinforces the dual layers of protection under Fifth Amendment and Article 31:

Service members are entitled to warnings before any incriminating inquiry.
Warnings are insufficient if misinformative or misleading.
Once custody is established, Miranda protections overlay the UCMJ, heightening procedural safeguards.
Reimonenq demonstrates courts will enforce stringent standards for waiver validity—including clear invocation of counsel and accurate advisement—particularly under stressful and constrained conditions.

This decision contributes significantly to military jurisprudence, clarifying that rights advisements must be accurate, fully understood, and respected in practice—not merely recited in form. Feel free to let me know if you want further breakdowns or want to discuss remand possibilities or related appellate trends.