room to prevent further criminal activity." U.S. v. Wisniewski, 21 MJ 370 (CMA, 1986). The Court relied
on another case, U.S. v. Acosta, 11 MJ 307 (CMA, 1981). There, the odor of burning marijuana was
detected coming from underneath the door to the accused's room. When a sergeant knocked on the
door, the accused opened it, and was subsequently apprehended. A search of the room was upheld:
"We can conceive of no greater exigency requiring immediate action than the perceived present active
use of debilitating drugs by specific servicepersons. To require a person in authority who is exposed to
such an emergency situation to put the situation "on hold" while he seeks authorization from a
magistrate would only exacerbate the threat. The reasonable application of the Fourth Amendment
does not demand this."
In another case, an Air Force squadron duty officer detected the odor of burning marijuana while he
was checking the billets on an installation in Europe. He knocked on a door and told the occupant to
open it. He then heard the sound of a window being opened. The court held that he "could reasonably
anticipate that if a crime was being committed behind the door on which he had knocked, evidence of it
was being disposed of. Plainly, immediate steps had to be taken to preserve that evidence." U.S. v.
Messler, 4 MJ 303 (CMA, 1978). On reconsideration of its decision, the court explained that "the
activation of marijuana in the barracks environment in a foreign country poses such a present danger to
the military mission as to create an emergency situation justifying immediate action by the squadron
duty officer to prevent its continued activation...Such an entry for this legitimate command purpose is
eminently reasonable as concomitant to the constitutional responsibility of the military service to be
ready to defend the primary society, especially when the unit is strategically located in the, front line of
our defense in foreign countries." U.S. v. Hessler, 7 MJ 9 (CMA, 1979).
d. Medical Emergency/Rescue. MRE 312(f) states: "Nothing in this rule shall be deemed to
interfere with the lawful authority of the armed forces to take whatever action may be necessary to
preserve the health of a servicemember. Evidence or contraband obtained from an examination or
intrusion conducted for a valid medical purpose may be seized." Such evidence is not considered to be
the product of an unlawful search, and is admissible in evidence. U.S. v. Nand, 17 MJ 936 (AFCMR,
1984). In U.S. v. Rays, 16 MJ 636 (AFCMR, 1983), the court held that a police entry into a private
dwelling requires a warrant "unless such intrusion falls within one of the few well-delineated exceptions
to this rule." In that case, the accused was notified at work that his wife had attempted suicide. He
went home to where she was, and found that she had taken some pills. From his experience as a
pharmacy technician, he determined that she was in no danger. Nonetheless, his superiors went to the
home and ordered the accused to take his wife to the hospital. At the emergency room, it was
determined that no medical treatment was required, and she was referred to the out-patient mental
health clinic. Despite this, the hospital commander told the accused's first sergeant to find out what
drugs had been taken. The first sergeant contacted the security police, and the home was searched.
This resulted in the discovery of some stolen property. As the court noted, MRE 314(i) states: "In
emergency circumstances to save life or for a related purpose, a search may be conducted of persons
1-57
MP1021
Previous Page
