United States v. Konieczka

The issue for this Court is whether appellant’s urine was seized as a part of a lawful inspection under Mil.R.Evid. 313(b) or whether it was an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. I take it there is no contention that the officer ordering the unit urinalysis had anything other than a proper military inspection in mind. Therefore, the controversy is focused on the after-the-fact handling of appellant’s urine sample by Mr. Christman, the installation drug-control officer.

To begin, I agree with the majority that Mr. Christman did not “randomly” select appellant’s urine…