Legal Opinion
United States v. Mitchell
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Decided August 30, 2017No. 17-0153/ARPublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Chief Judge STUCKY
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We address today the Fifth Amendment limits on asking a suspect to unlock his phone when the device has been seized pursuant to a valid search and seizure authorization.1 Because Appellee had previously invoked his right to counsel, we hold that the Government violated his Fifth Amendment rights as protected by Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), when agents asked him in the absence of counsel to enter the phone’s passcode. Pursuant to the plain language of Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 305(c)(2),…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Rhode Island v. InnisSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Oregon v. MathiasonSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Hoffman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- United States v. Pinto-ThomazDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 2018
- United States v. BelloUnited States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals · 2019
- United States v. DrinkertNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals · 2021
- United States v. HuntUnited States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals · 2019
- United States v. JerkinsCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces · 2018
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.