United States v. Jones
2014 CAAF LEXIS 720
| C.A.A.F. | 2014Background
- Jones was convicted by general court-martial of conspiracy to commit burglary and burglary; SPC Ellis, an MP augmentee, questioned Jones about the burglary; Ellis was off-duty and not authorized to perform MP duties or question suspects; suppression motion denied; ACCA summarily affirmed; issue presented whether the military judge abused his discretion in admitting Jones’s statement given Article 31(b) warnings; court reviews for abuse of discretion and de novo on law.
- Ellis testified about a burglary plot involving Jones and fellow MPs Carrasquillo; Ellis later questioned Jones in his room after a shift, with Jones admitting involvement; Ellis had limited MP authority and was not acting as an official law enforcement officer at the time.
- Defense sought suppression because Article 31(b) warnings were not given; government argued Ellis was not acting in an official capacity; military judge found Ellis not acting officially and denied suppression.
- Military judge declined to reconsider suppression; ACCA affirmed findings and sentence.
- Court’s central issue: whether Article 31(b) warnings were required given the questioning circumstances and whether the military judge properly admitted the statement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the military judge abused discretion admitting the statement | Jones | Ellis was not official capacity | No abuse; Ellis not acting officially. |
| Whether Article 31(b) warnings were required | Jones sought suppression | No official capacity; warnings not required | Not required; warnings not required under facts. |
| What standard governs review of suppression rulings | Jones | N/A | De novo review for legal conclusions; clear error for facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cohen, 63 M.J. 45 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (clarifies Article 31(b) predicates and official capacity test)
- Swift v. United States, 53 M.J. 439 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (establishes objective vs subjective test for official capacity)
- United States v. Duga, 10 M.J. 206 (C.M.A. 1981) (two-part test for Article 31(b) warnings; rejected subjective prong)
- United States v. Price, 44 M.J. 430 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (analyze questioner’s authority; impact of official duties)
- United States v. Good, 32 M.J. 105 (C.M.A. 1991) (objective standard for official capacity in Article 31(b))