United States v. Campbell
1994 CMA LEXIS 133, 41 M.J. 177, 1994 WL 667178 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A command-directed urinalysis in which specific individuals are selected for testing based on a commander's subjective suspicion of criminal activity, rather than on a neutral, non-discriminatory basis, constitutes an illegal search and not a valid military inspection. Evidence obtained from such a search, and any subsequent confession derived directly from it, is inadmissible in a court-martial.
Facts:
- First Sergeant (1SG) Sharp heard rumors of drug use within the Headquarters and 1st Platoons of his company.
- A soldier informed 1SG Sharp that a drug problem existed in those two platoons but declined to name specific individuals.
- 1SG Sharp was aware that another soldier in the unit, SGT Anderson, had recently tested positive on a urinalysis.
- 1SG Sharp observed the appellant, Sergeant Campbell, associating with SGT Anderson in the barracks area, which he characterized as 'suspicious.'
- Based on the rumors and his observation of Campbell's association with SGT Anderson, 1SG Sharp created a list of 12-15 soldiers, including Campbell, to be tested.
- 1SG Sharp presented the list to the Company Commander, who then ordered the selected individuals to undergo a urinalysis.
- Campbell's urinalysis test returned positive for cocaine.
- Approximately 20 days later, military investigators confronted Campbell with the positive test results, after which he confessed to using cocaine.
Procedural Posture:
- Sergeant Campbell was tried by a general court-martial.
- The defense moved to suppress the urinalysis results and subsequent confessions, arguing the test was an illegal search.
- The military judge denied the motion, ruling the urinalysis was a valid health and welfare inspection.
- Campbell was convicted of wrongful use of cocaine, contrary to his pleas.
- The convening authority approved the sentence.
- The U.S. Army Court of Military Review (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding the military judge did not err.
- Campbell (appellant) petitioned the U.S. Court of Military Appeals (highest military court), which granted review of the case against the United States (appellee).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a command-directed urinalysis, where soldiers are hand-picked for testing based on generalized suspicion of drug use and association with known drug users rather than neutral criteria, constitute an invalid search under Military Rule of Evidence 313(b), thereby rendering the positive results and a subsequent confession inadmissible?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Sullivan
Yes. A urinalysis where specific individuals are selected based on suspicion of criminal activity is an invalid search, not a legitimate inspection, and its fruits must be suppressed. Military Rule of Evidence 313(b) allows for inspections to ensure military fitness, but if specific individuals are selected, the government must show by clear and convincing evidence that the primary purpose was not to obtain evidence for a criminal conviction. Here, 1SG Sharp compiled his list based on rumors, associations, and subjective suspicion, not on a neutral, nondiscriminatory basis. This converted the 'inspection' into a subterfuge for a search. The search also lacked probable cause, as suspicion and association are insufficient. Because Campbell's confession was obtained by confronting him with the results of this illegal search, the confession is inadmissible as 'fruit of the poisonous tree.'
Dissenting - Judge Cox
No. The urinalysis was a reasonable inspection conducted for the legitimate purpose of ensuring combat readiness. The fundamental purpose of the military drug testing program is to maintain an effective fighting force. The commander had reason to believe there was a drug problem in the unit and took reasonable steps to address it. It is illogical to hold that a completely random, reasonless urinalysis is constitutional, while one based on an articulated concern for unit fitness is not. The commander was fulfilling his constitutional duties, not conducting an improper criminal investigation.
Concurring - Judge Gierke
Yes. While a pre-established policy is not a strict requirement for a valid inspection, this specific urinalysis was an invalid search. The crucial factor distinguishing this case from others is that the commander was fully aware of and participated in the first sergeant's suspicion-based selection process. Because the commander knew the list was compiled based on suspicion rather than neutral criteria, the commander's own intent was tainted, making it an invalid search under Mil.R.Evid. 313 and not a legitimate inspection.
Concurring - Judge Crawford
Yes. While concurring in the result, it is improper to apply legal standards from civilian automobile inventory searches to the distinct context of military inspections. The majority's reliance on dictum from United States v. Bickel, which cited Florida v. Wells, is unsupported and unwise. The urinalysis was improper, but the reasoning should be confined to the military-specific rules and context.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the distinction between a valid military 'inspection' and an unconstitutional 'search' in the context of urinalysis testing. It establishes that while commanders have broad authority to ensure unit readiness, that authority is not unlimited. By requiring a 'nondiscriminatory basis' for selecting individuals when an entire unit is not tested, the court curtails the use of subjective suspicion as a basis for testing and reinforces Fourth Amendment protections for servicemembers. This precedent forces commanders to rely on neutral criteria, such as true random selection or established unit-wide policies, if they wish for urinalysis results to be admissible in a court-martial, thereby preventing arbitrary targeting under the guise of an 'inspection.'
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Campbell