United States v. Robinson
2017 CCA LEXIS 378
| A.F.C.C.A. | 2017Background
- On 20 Aug 2014 Senior Airman Hank W. Robinson exchanged sexually explicit text messages with his 14‑year‑old stepdaughter (AH). He was later tried by general court‑martial and convicted, contrary to plea, of intentionally communicating indecent language to a child under 16; sentence approved: bad‑conduct discharge, 1 month confinement, reduction to E‑1.
- AFOSI investigated; after Robinson invoked his right to counsel following Article 31 warnings, agents completed administrative booking and then asked for consent to search his cell phone; Robinson gave verbal consent, signed an AF Form 1364, and provided the phone passcode.
- Agents made an electronic copy of the phone data; later the defense informed law enforcement that Robinson had revoked consent.
- Robinson moved to suppress the text messages, arguing (1) consent was involuntary because questioning continued after invocation of counsel, (2) asking for the passcode violated his Fifth Amendment/Article 31 rights; on appeal he also argued for the first time that the search exceeded consent and that he revoked consent prior to the search.
- The military judge denied suppression; Robinson did not object to the reasonable‑doubt instruction at trial and did not object to certain sentencing arguments; he raises three assignments of error on appeal: suppression, instruction on reasonable doubt, and improper sentencing argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consent to search phone was voluntary | Gov: Consent was valid; given after rights read and knowingly executed | Robinson: Consent invalid because agents reinitiated questioning after he invoked right to counsel | Court: Consent was voluntary; factual findings supported and application of law not unreasonable |
| Whether asking for phone passcode violated Fifth Amendment | Gov: Request for passcode not testimonial or interrogation; logically connected to consent | Robinson: Asking for passcode after invocation of counsel was interrogation and compelled testimonial evidence | Court: Request did not constitute interrogation or elicit testimonial incrimination under Innis/Roa; passcode not incriminating; no Fifth Amendment violation |
| Whether the phone search exceeded scope or consent was revoked (raised only on appeal) | Gov: Search within consent scope; revocation claim waived for failure to raise at trial | Robinson: Search went beyond “look through” expectation; he revoked consent before search | Court: Waived—defense limited suppression grounds at trial; appellate claims not considered |
| Whether trial counsel’s sentencing argument was improper | Gov: Counsel may argue inferences from record; argument tied to rehabilitative potential | Robinson: Counsel improperly referenced testimony about conduct for which he was acquitted, inflaming members | Court: No plain error; arguments were within record and focused on rehabilitation and sentencing factors, not punishment for acquitted offenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (consent is a recognized Fourth Amendment exception)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (interrogation defined by words/actions reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (ban on custodial interrogation after assertion of right to counsel)
- United States v. Hutchins, 72 M.J. 294 (post‑invocation contacts and who reinitiates communications analyzed)
- United States v. Roa, 24 M.J. 297 (request for consent to search is not interrogation under Fifth Amendment)
- United States v. Chatfield, 67 M.J. 432 (standard of review for denial of suppression)
- United States v. Hoffmann, 75 M.J. 120 (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable; consent burden on government)
- United States v. McClour, 76 M.J. 23 (reasonable‑doubt instruction issue addressed by CAAF)