In U.S. v. Bailey, 3 MJ 799 (ACMR, 1977), military police investigators seized marijuana that was
hidden in a bucket under a sink in the first floor latrine in the barracks. The court found no reasonable
expectation of privacy under these facts. In U.S. v. Wisniewski, 21 MJ 370 (CMA, 1986), an NCO
"peered into an opening in the blinds" covering a window which was along a public walkway. The court
held that the sergeant "did nothing more than look through an opening available to any curious
passerby...The common walkway from which (he) peered through the opening in the blinds was
available for the use of residents of the barracks and their guests, as well as others having legitimate
reasons to be on the premises...He had no difficulty in gaining a view into the room by merely peering
through the opening in the blinds. Thus, the accused had no reasonable expectation of privacy from
visual intrusions in the place and objects observed because they could be viewed with ease from a
public walkway."
In Maryland v. Bacon, 37 Cr. L. 3111 (1985), undercover police officers entered an adult bookstore
in the afternoon (during the time when it was open to the public), looked through some of the
magazines, bought some, and then arrested the clerk. Since the public had been invited into the store,
the actions of the police did not violate any reasonable expectation privacy on the part of the defendant.
A recent military case illustrates an instance where the court determined that the accused had no
reasonable expectation of privacy. In U.S. v. Visser, 40 MJ 86 (CMA, 1994), the government did not
invade the accused's reasonable expectation of privacy where a moving company exposed
unpackaged items within its truck to security police. The security polices' view of the items was
properly used to obtain a civilian search warrant.
b. Abandoned Property. Here, the accused has no reasonable expectation of privacy. In a case
where the subject paid his bill and vacated a hotel room, a subsequent search of the wastepaper
basket in the room was lawful, as it involved property that had been abandoned. Abel v. U.S., 4
L.Ed.2d 668 (1960). The same was true for the recovery of a crumpled piece of paper from a trash can
in the accused's office. U.S. v. Perkins, 47 CMR 259 (AFCMR, 1973). In U.S. v. Ayala, 23 MJ 777
(ACMR, 1986), affid 26 MJ 190 (ACMR 1988), the accused was suspected of having killed his wife.
The CID learned that the accused was living in guest quarters and had moved out of his government
quarters. When they arrived at the government quarters, however, they discovered that all of the
furniture had been removed, but the quarters were still in the process of being cleared. The accused
had moved out and removed all personal property, and the quarters were still being cleaned. He was
"no longer using the premises for their intended purpose as a place of residence." Under these facts,
the accused still possessed "an interest" in the quarters, but it was "equally clear that (he) also had
voluntarily relinquished any right to use the quarters as a residence...(he) was no longer making
personal use of the quarters as his residence." The court found there was no reasonable expectation
or privacy, explaining that "we do not believe that society is prepared to recognize such an expectation
when a soldier has moved all of his personal belongings from the government quarters located on a
military installation, has completed his own preclearing chores in those quarters, has retained a
contract cleaning team, has provided that team with a means of access to the quarters, has left the
team in those quarters to clean them after they were empty, and has taken up residence in another
building on the military installation."
MP1021
1-10
Previous Page
