United States v. Dease
2012 CAAF LEXIS 536
| C.A.A.F. | 2012Background
- Appellant consented to a urinalysis and a dormitory room search during an OSI investigation.
- Sample was seized June 15, 2010 but not tested until late July; results later tested positive for cocaine.
- On June 21, 2010, Appellant signed a notice revoking consent to interrogation and requesting counsel; prior consent was to be honored.
- Six weeks later, the urine was sent to Brooks laboratory for testing; Appellant’s revocation occurred before testing.
- On August 26, 2010, after results were known, Appellant made a statement and consented to another urinalysis and dormitory search.
- Military judge suppressed urinalysis evidence and derivative evidence; Air Force CCA reversed, prompting review by the air force court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether withdrawal of consent preserves privacy in urine sample | Dease retained privacy and could revoke consent under M.R.E. 314(e)(3). | Consent equates to abandonment once given for testing; no privacy interest after surrender. | Appellant retained privacy; withdrawal permitted; suppression affirmed. |
| Whether inevitable discovery applies to urinalysis evidence | Evidence would have been inevitably discovered through parallel investigation. | No probable cause or independent leads; inevitable discovery not established. | Inevitable discovery does not apply; suppression affirmed. |
| Whether derivative evidence from August 26, 2010 is admissible | Consent to search after revocation should attenuate taint; derivative evidence admissible. | taint from unlawful search cannot be sufficiently attenuated; derivative evidence excluded. | Derivative evidence excluded; taint not sufficiently attenuated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1989) (separate privacy interests in procurement and testing of bodily fluids)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 604 (U.S. 1975) (attenuation factors for consent after illegal conduct)
- Conklin, 63 M.J. 333 (CAAF 2006) (three-factor attenuation test for consent after taint)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (U.S. 1975) (see Brown v. Illinois (attenuation framework))
- Kozak, 12 M.J. 389 (CM.A. 1982) (probable cause and inevitable discovery standards in military context)
- Wallace, 66 M.J. 5 (CAAF 2008) (seizure and testing of a computer hard drive as separate intrusions)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1984) (inevitable discovery doctrine described)