Legal Opinion
United States v. Bair
U S Air Force Court of Military Review
Decided November 11, 1989No. ACM 27605PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION
HODGSON, Chief Judge:
On appeal, as he did at trial, the appellant argues that an anonymous, unsubstantiated tip does not provide “reasonable suspicion” to order a “command-directed” urinalysis. Thus, appellant contends the order was not valid and he committed no offense by failing to obey it. We disagree.
Air Force directives give a commander the authority to order a “command-directed” examination of a member’s urine where he has a “reasonable suspicion” of that individual’s drug involvement. Air Force Regulation 30-2, Social Actions Program, para. 5-8 (18 April 1988) [hereinafter AFR…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- United States v. RussoUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1975
- The Committee for Gi Rights v. Honorable Howard H. Callaway, Secretary of the ArmyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1975
- Murray v. HaldemanUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983
- Mark P. Chilcott v. Verne Orr, Secretary of the United States Air ForceCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1984
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- United States v. HiltonU S Air Force Court of Military Review · 1990
- United States v. BairUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1991