.jpg)
CAAF ordered briefing of the issue. Once again, those briefs were sufficient to decide the case. On Friday, CAAF issued this summary disposition:
We granted review to determine whether the military judge erred when he denied trial defense counsel’s motion to suppress Appellant’s positive urinalysis test. 66 M.J. 188 (C.A.A.F. 2008). In this case, there was: (1) a properly constituted command drug testing program in effect at Appellant’s installation, and (2) evidence that the order to provide the specimen was incident to command under Military Rule of Evidence 313(b). Therefore, we hold that the military judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion to suppress. Accordingly, it is ordered that the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.United States v. Fletcher, __ M.J. ___, No. 04-0465/AF (C.A.A.F. May 30, 2008) (summary disposition).
Posts
2 comments:
Given the sometimes months of internal work that goes into these decisions, and all the thought, I wish CAAF would do MORE of this. Summary dispositions, even when it decides to DENY a case, are a good idea. There is not always a need for a lengthy explanation...just the gist of the court's reasoning. More, please.
I agree with Anonymous. If oral argument isn't going to change the reasult, the court might as well move the case along.
Post a Comment