Articles Posted in Uncategorized

Do you have clients who want to know about search warrants or authorizations, and do you want information and access?  Well of course.  Here's an interesting case which raises the issue of access to search warrant materials pre-indictment under the Fourth Amendment — or in the military pre-preferral.  If the premise of the case is correct, then NCIS, OSI, CID, CGIS, or the SJA can't just gaff you off when you ask for the search authorization materials prior to preferral.  A writ of mandamus would seem to be in order.

In re Searches & Seizures, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107087 (E.D. Cal. December 19, 2008).

Note, there is no "sealing" of pre-indictment documents in the military as there is in federal district court.

As noted earlier, the Smith Amendment was changed recently.  An astute reader has provided a new name for us — the commenter refers now to the "Bond Amendment."  Instead of the old Smith Amendment at 10 U.S. Code 986, the new law on security clearances for persons sentenced to confinement or certain punitive discharges is at 50 U.S.C. 435b, Section 3002, Pub. L. 108-375, §1062, 118 Stat. 2056.  For quick comparison here are the two as suggested by Mr.Henderson.

The Smith Amendment, 10 U. S. Code 986prohibited only DoD from granting or continuing security clearances for:

Some snippets from cases released to LEXIS.

Plain view.

Greg Bruno, Backgrounder: Closing Guantanamo, Council on Foreign Relations, 12 February 2009.

You will notice a reference to trial by court-martial under the UCMJ.

Some, including legal experts with the Congressional Research Service,

United States v. Goode, No. 07-2269, 2009 U. S. App. LEXIS 2471, unpublished op. (3d Cir. 9 February 2009).

The interesting point for this case is that the court found that telling a person to stop, ordering them to lie on the ground, and placing them in handcuffs is merely an investigative "stop."  Once additional evidence is developed then the person can be arrested and then searched incident to arrest.

Fortunately this is not a situation likely to occur in military cases on base.  But the case is interesting to read for a reminder of searches incident to arrest.

United States v. Gross (Military Judge), Army Misc. 20081049 unpublished op. (A. Ct. Crim. App. 9 January 2009).  [When you get to the court site, go to the "summary dispositions – by date" page.]

This case is a government petitione for an extraordinary writ (not listed in the Denedo pleadings at the Supreme Court as a overusage of the All Writs Act?).

David Mills hosts a fabulous blog — Courtoons.

Join him at his site daily. 

Evan Knappenberger, Acknowledge soldier's right to object, Seattle PI.com, 9 February 2009.

Mr. Knappenberger is described as, "an Iraq War veteran and a Davis-Putter Scholar at Whatcom Community College in Bellingham."

He argues that war objectors should be treated the same as conscientious objectors.

Andrew Gilmore, Mexico publishes law establishing database of mobile phone users, Paper Chase, JURIST, 10 February 2009.

CAAFLog has noted that NMCCA has scheduled oral argument in United States v. Craig, No. NMCCA 200800716

The two issues are:

I. WHETHER THE APPELLANT’S GUILTY PLEA TO DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY WAS IMPROVIDENT, AS THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT APPELLANT DELIVERED ANY UNLAWFUL IMAGES TO ANYONE?