MRE 313 similarly defines an inspection as "an examination of the whole or part of a unit,
organization, installation, vessel, aircraft, or vehicle, including an examination conducted at entrance
and exit points, conducted as an incident of command the primary purpose of which is to determine and
to ensure the security, military fitness, or good order and discipline of the unit, organization, installation,
vessel, aircraft, or vehicle." It includes "an examination to determine and to ensure that any or all of the
following requirements are met: that the command is properly equipped, functioning properly,
maintaining proper standards of readiness, sea or airworthiness, sanitation and cleanliness, and that
personnel are present, fit and ready for duty." It includes "an examination to locate and confiscate
unlawful weapons and other contraband." An "order to produce body fluids, such as urine, is
permissible." Inspections must be "reasonable," and may utilize any reasonable natural or technological
aid and may be conducted with or without notice to those inspected.
During such an inspection, "no serviceperson whose area is subject to the inspection may
reasonably expect any privacy which will be protected from the inspection." The commander may use
"a trained drug-detection dog as a means of enhancing his own natural senses." The use of such a
dog "is a proper incident of a legitimate fitness and readiness inspection." Evidence seized during such
an inspection will be admissible, unless it is determined to be merely a sham, or subterfuge, for an
illegal search, designed to circumvent, or evade, the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. U.S. v.
Middleton, 10 MJ 123 (CMA, 1981). An examination that is made "for the primary purpose of obtaining
evidence for use in a trial by court-martial or in other disciplinary proceedings is not an inspection."
(MRE 313b.)
During an inspection, specific individuals should not be selected for an "inspection." Such an
"inspection" of only one or two individuals will be viewed by the courts with great skepticism. Also,
persons should not be subjected to substantially different treatment during the inspection. If an
inspection includes among its purposes the location of weapons or contraband, and if one of these
things has been done (inspecting only a select few individuals or subjecting those inspected to
disparate treatment), then it will be very difficult for the government to convince the court that this is
really an inspection, and not simply an unlawful search that has been called an inspection. Similarly, if
the inspection is looking for contraband and/or weapons, and if it is directed immediately following a
report of a specific criminal offense in the unit, the government's burden of proof will be a very heavy
one. The government may still win, but it must prove that it is doing a legitimate inspection through the
introduction of "clear and convincing evidence." (MRE 313.)
You should notice the similarities between an inventory and an inspection. Both are designed for
administrative purposes, and both are NOT primarily intended to obtain evidence for use in a court-
martial or other disciplinary proceeding. Both are not defined as "searches." As a matter-of-fact, it is a
good idea to get used to NOT calling them searches. Call them either inventories or inspections,
depending on which you are dealing with.
1-69
MP1021
Previous Page
