Navy Times reports:
Second Lt. Douglas Sofranko has spent the last year impressing his fellow soldiers in the Florida Army National Guard with stories of his days as a Navy SEAL, while proudly wearing the distinctive Trident insignia on his Army uniform. He even had the SEAL Creed hung on the wall of his office.
The problem is, it was all a lie.
Navy Times reports:
Big Navy is trying to work around a recent military court decision striking down a fleet-wide rule forcing sailors to report any drunken-driving or other civilian arrests to their command.
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus revised a high-level Navy regulation July 20 in response to the case of a chief who claimed the self-reporting requirement was unconstitutional and violated his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
I’m aware of one case in the military where the NCIS used GPS tracking (after getting a warrant). Fourthamendment.com recommends:
The D.C. Circuit held on Friday that a warrant is needed for prolonged GPS surveillance, recognizing People v. Weaver from New York and limitingKnotts. [This is a highly important decision. Every criminal and constitutional lawyer needs to read it.] United States v. Maynard, No. 08-3030 (D.C.Cir. August 6, 2010)[.]
Two circuits, relying upon Knotts, have held the use of a GPS tracking device to monitor an individual’s movements in his vehicle over a prolonged period is not a search, United States v. Pineda-Moreno, 591 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. Garcia, 474 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2007), but in neither case did the appellant argue that Knotts by its terms does not control whether prolonged surveillance is a search, as Jones argues here. Indeed, in Garcia the appellant explicitly conceded the point. …
On 28 July 2010, ACCA issued a memorandum opinion and decision for the government appeal in United States v. Kirk, ARMY MISC 20100443 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 28 July 2010).
At trial the accused blew providency on an AWOL plea. The prosecution decided they wanted to go forward on the desertion. As part of the case the prosecution wanted to use unwarned statements made to the First Sergeant. The military judge said the statements were coerced, etc., and excluded them. The prosecution appealed. Of course the ACCA ruled in favor of the government that being dragged to the First Sergeant’s office, locked up, and asked a bunch of questions, was not an interrogation and any statements were voluntary. Cases cited are United States v. Duga, 10 M.J. 206 (C.M.A. 1981); United States v. Loukas, 29 M.J. 385 (C.M.A. 1990). Basically it is in the mind of the questioner, not the person being questioned.
Here is the noteworthy piece.
World News Daily has this report:
At the conclusion of the arraignment, Lakin was ordered not to speak with the press and was taken back to Reed under military escort, surprising and disturbing a civilian lawyer who has been working on his case.
“This was completely inappropriate. Col Lakin was brought here and taken away from here as if he was a common criminal. He was prohibited from talking to the press for two minutes; he was prohibited from talking to anybody, even me,” Paul Rolf Jenson said.
I had to go to the bank, pet store, and commissary today so I stopped off to watch the arraignment.
There was a standard R.C.M. 802 conference.
The Army script was followed.
A former U.S. Army contractor was arrested today in Newport News, Va., for allegedly killing one sailor and seriously injuring another in a vehicular collision in Kuwait[.]
Hanks is charged under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA), a statute that gives U.S. courts jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed outside the United States by, among others, contractors or subcontractors of the Department of Defense. If convicted, Hanks faces up to 10 years in prison.
The case was investigated by the U.S. Army’s Criminal Investigative Division and is being prosecuted by Senior Trial Attorneys Micah D. Pharris and Steven C. Parker of the Criminal Division’s Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section (HRSP) and Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric Hurt for the Eastern District of Virginia.
United States v. Newby has been decided and has a reminder for trial defense counsel.
The military judge made a clemency recommendation.
The SJAR failed to note the clemency recommendation.
On 16 July 2010, Orly Taitz posted the following item on her website.
NO ANSWER FROM JUSTICE THOMAS YET. PEOPLE CAN FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS- FRIEND OF THE COURT, IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION
Pity, because there is a 15 July 2010 entry on the Supreme Court journal regarding Taitz v. Thomas D. MacDonald, Colonel Garrison Commander, Fort Benning, et al:
Here is an new grant from CAAF.
No. 10-0494/AF. U.S. v. Caleb B. BEATY. CCA 37478. Review granted on the following issue:
WHETHER THE SENTENCE MUST BE SET ASIDE BECAUSE THE MILITARY JUDGE DETERMINED THE SENTENCE BASED ON THE INCORRECT MAXIMUM PUNISHMENT.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog