United States v. Shover

I disagree with the majority opimon on the first issue for the reasons stated in the dissenting opimon of Chief Judge Dixon in the court below. 42 MJ 753, 757 (1995).

As to whether the challenged urinalysis was a lawful inspection under Mil.R.Evid. 313, Manual for Courts-Martial, Urnted States (1995 ed.), I need go no further than the testimony of the acting commander and the consistent findmgs of the military judge. The former revealed that there had been “ ‘a lot of finger pointing, hard feelings,’ and ‘tension’m Building 505 as a result of the Adams incident” and he “wanted to get people…