Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Curry

U.S. Army Court of Military Review

Decided February 11, 1983No. CM 440853Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partO’Donnell, Senior Judge

I agree with the majority with respect to Parts I, II, III, IV, VII, VIII, IX, XI and XII. I disagree, however, with Parts V and VI (the two searches) and concur in the result only as to Part X (post-trial review).

I. The Two Searches

Initially, I disagree that the appellant lacked standing to contest the legality of the search of Sergeant Curry’s quarters. The Supreme Court in recent cases has limited the right of a person to attack the search of another’s residence. United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83, 100 S.Ct. 2547, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Aguilar v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  3. Payton v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Spinelli v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  5. Rakas v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1979

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API