Have Military Law Questions? Ask a Military Lawyer.
Hello, my name is ***** ***** I will be helping you today.
This is a unique application of military law. In particular, the US Court of Military Appeals, the highest court created by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, has held that so long long as the commanding officer fairly determines that probable cause to conduct a search exists and specified the premises to be searched and the items to be seized, his authorization to conduct the search is lawful and does not violate the 4th amendment even though a search warrant has not been issued. This is why the search warrant does not need to be provided when the search is done.
What might be going on then is that a separate federal/state government body (FBI or state police) may now be investigating that matter and therefore requesting a search warrant for the phone so that they could use the evidence obtained.
Additionally, if the phone was legally obtained and during the search of the phone there were other crimes discovered, the police are permitted to use that additional evidence to investigate the other crime even though the evidence was originally being sought by the original search warrant.
Different expert here...I see your request for a phone call from yesterday...are you still interested in a phone call?
And this is the military police?
What may be happening is that the search authorization was limited in scope, and once certain information was found, they requested a second authorization to expand the scope and collect additional information.
For example, the first search authorization might have been to look for evidence of adultery, but that would have permitted only a limited scope of the search, such as looking through phone or text messages. If they are looking for bribery evidence, the search authorization might be broadened to pull all emails and documents from the phone.
You are right that the search of the phone should just be looking for information related to the accuser; however, it is possible that there would be evidence discovered incidental to that original authorization.
But you are correct, courts have begun to hold that cell phone searches can be determined to be too broad by looking on the cell phone at certain data that would clearly not be related to the incident that is being reported. So what might be occurring is that the second search authorization is being used in an attempt to try to get a legal right to use the other information that might have been obtained during the first search but which was too broad in scope to be permissible.
If the subject can show that the first search was too broad and led to the second search authorization, then it is possible that evidence of obtained during both searches could be thrown out in any proceeding.
The subject should be obtaining counsel if possible because whether or not he should cooperate is a complicated judgment that will depend on complex facts and circumstances of his case.