Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Appellant:
Captain Patricia A. McHugh (argued); Lieutenant Colonel
Beverly B. Knott, Lieutenant Colonel Timothy W. Murphy, and Captain Karen
L. Hecker (on brief); Colonel James R. Wise.
For Appellee:
Major Jennifer R. Rider (argued); Colonel Anthony P. Dattilo
and Major Lance B. Sigmon (on brief).
Military Judge:
Howard P. Sweeney
We hold that the military judge did not err when he admitted
evidence of drug tests performed on appellants hair showing the
(R. 279)
He found:
See
1 All Manual provisions are cited to the version in effect at the time of
appellants court-martial. The current version is identical, unless otherwise
indicated.
See
I
Appellant initially contends that the military judge erred
when he denied the defenses motion to suppress evidence that a
sample of appellants hair, seized by the Government, tested
positive for methamphetamine.
Final Brief at 6.
10
208 F.3d 603, 607 (7th Cir. 2000) (to show reckless disregard for
truth, the defense must offer evidence that affiant in fact
entertained serious doubts about the truth of his allegations or
had obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the allegations).
It states:
11
See
this question adversely to the defense (R. 278), and his ruling
is supported by evidence in the record.
12
It further introduced
Finally, the
In these
United States v. Whitely, 249 F.3d 614, 621-24 (7th Cir. 2001);
see generally United States v. Photogrammetric Data Services,
Inc., 259 F.3d 229, 238 (4th Cir. 2001) (mere negligence in
recording facts in supporting affidavit is not sufficient to
establish Franks violation).2
2 This case illustrates well why federal military and civilian systems of
justice grant deference to search authority provided by detached magistrates,
such as Colonel Caldwell, who are prepared to put law enforcement affiants to
the test.
13
(Statement of
This
See United States v. Prouse, 945 F.2d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir.
II
Appellant also asserts that the results of hair analysis
tests for drugs in his case were inadmissible under Mil.R.Evid.
401 and 403.
his hair sample indicated only drug use at some unspecified point
within four to five months preceding April 29, 1997.
at 16.
Final Brief
14
was proximate in time to the charged use is, at the very least,
relevant to corroborate his confession.
On appeal, however, he
Id. at 16.
He now
15
47 MJ at 305.
(R. 383-86)
(R. 279)
See id.
at 312.
16