Legal Opinion · Concurrence

United States v. Alexander

United States Court of Military Appeals

Decided March 6, 1992No. 66,299; ACM 28455Published

1ConcurrenceCox, Judge

Because the seizure of evidence in this case was litigated at trial on the basis of military inspection and not probable cause, and since, as the Court of Military Review notes, “the facts [of probable cause] are not developed in great detail,”** I prefer to analyze the seizure in terms of inspection.

Due to the critical and unique nature of the military mission, inspections of many sorts are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and are everyday facts of military life. United States v. Bickel, 30 MJ 277 (CMA 1990); Murray v. Haldeman, 16 MJ 74 (CMA 1983); United States v. Middleton, 10 MJ 123…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. United States v. MiddletonUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1981
  2. Murray v. HaldemanUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1983
  3. United States v. BickelUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1990
  4. United States v. WilliamsUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1957
  5. United States v. MorrisUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1989

2 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