United States v. Blatney
ACM 2016-16
| A.F.C.C.A. | May 22, 2017Background
- Senior Airman Blatney was charged with wrongful cocaine use; AFOSI interviewed him after a positive urinalysis and seized his personal property (including an iPhone) before the custodial interview.
- During the recorded interview, Blatney unequivocally invoked his Article 31 right to counsel, then consented to written searches of his phone, vehicle, and residence.
- After completing consent forms, an agent retrieved Blatney’s iPhone and asked him to unlock it; Blatney entered his passcode and the agents later used a UFED to extract text messages about the urinalysis.
- The military judge ruled Blatney’s consent to search was voluntary but suppressed the phone contents, concluding that asking him to unlock the phone after invocation of counsel was a re-initiation of interrogation and that entering the passcode was a nonverbal incriminating statement.
- The Government appealed under Article 62, arguing the request to unlock was not interrogation and the UFED evidence should be admissible; the AFCCA reviewed the issue as one of law (facts accepted as not clearly erroneous).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Blatney) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an agent’s request that an accused unlock his phone after invocation of counsel constitutes "interrogation" implicating the Fifth Amendment and requiring suppression | Request for passcode/unlock was not interrogation; consent to search was voluntary; Government did not need to introduce the act of unlocking itself | Asking him to unlock after invocation was a re-initiation of questioning; entering passcode was a nonverbal incriminating statement; thus derived evidence must be suppressed | Government appeal granted; military judge’s suppression vacated and case remanded for the judge to determine whether the act of entering the passcode itself communicated an incriminating statement under the specific facts; only if it did must she then address reinitiation analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nieto, 76 M.J. 101 (C.A.A.F.) (standard of review for motions to suppress)
- United States v. Keefauver, 74 M.J. 230 (C.A.A.F.) (appellate review: facts for clear error, law de novo)
- United States v. Hutchins, 72 M.J. 294 (C.A.A.F.) (discussion of reinitiation of communication after invocation)
- United States v. Gore, 60 M.J. 178 (C.A.A.F.) (abuse of discretion scope and when findings are fairly supported)
- United States v. Seay, 60 M.J. 73 (C.A.A.F.) (when a military judge abuses discretion)