suppression Tag Archives — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

Phone searches – Cave & Freeburg, LLP

March 28, 2026 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

United States v. Guinsler — Case Summary, prepared by Phil Cave of Cave & Freeburg, LLP

What the Court Decided in Guinsler

In January 2026, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia indicted Army soldier James Isaac Guinsler on four counts of coercion and enticement of a child and one count of possession of child pornography. The case began when Snapchat’s automated system flagged two images of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) that Guinsler shared on April 29, 2024. The York-Poquoson Sheriff’s Office traced the Snapchat account to Guinsler through T-Mobile records, then obtained warrants for his Snapchat and iCloud accounts — both limited to a two-month window (April–May 2024). Those searches uncovered sexually explicit conversations with multiple females who identified themselves as minors.

SEAL case update

March 28, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Kate Wiltrout of Virginia Pilot reports that:

Prosecutors handling the courts-martial of two local Navy SEALs charged with not stopping a teammate’s alleged assault on an Iraqi detainee faced another setback Friday.

Cmdr. Tierney Carlos agreed to exclude a statement made by one of the SEALs to the special agent investigating the allegations in September because the agent didn’t advise him of his right to remain silent. As a result, one of two charges against Petty Officer 2nd Class Jonathan Keefe likely will be dropped.

Supreme Court “Miranda” cases

February 24, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The court has decided Maryland v. Shatzer (background documents on SCOTUSWiki here ) and also Florida v. Powell (background documents on SCOTUSWiki here). Both cases relate to “Miranda” rights and confessions. In Powell, the issue was how much detail must go into a “Miranda” warning in order to be sufficient, in Shatzer the court addresses the break in custody situation.

In Powell the issue was whether the rights advice given properly conveyed to the suspect that he had the right to counsel present during questioning and not just before being questioned. After an interesting discussion showing how ambiguous the language used was, the court found the appellant was adequately advised. Interestingly, the court noted that:

The standard warnings used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation are exemplary. They provide, in relevant part: “You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning.” Ibid., n. 3 (internal quotation marks omitted). This advice is admirably informative, but we decline to declare its precise formulation necessary to meet Miranda’s requirements. Different words were used in the advice Powell received, but they communicated the same essential message.