NMCCA: US v. Gladden (Jul 07)

U.S. v. Gladden, NMCCA 200600905 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. 2007). SPCM for use of cocaine, Art. 112a. Appellant challenged the probable-cause determination underlying her command-directed urinalysis. Appellant was to begin a period of leave, but before leaving work she was informed that she had been selected to participate in the random urinalysis test. She failed to take the test, though she was repeatedly informed of the urinalysis and affirmed that she would take the test. CO learned of this, and after halting the random urinalysis testing asked Appellant to consent to a urinalysis. Appellant refused, and CO issued a probable-cause authorization to take Appellant’s urine sample.

Holding: Probable cause existed for the CO to issue search authorization. That Appellant apparently deliberately avoided the random urinalysis, and then refused a consent search, supplied the CO with a “substantial basis” to believe Appellant had used a controlled substance and evidence of this use would be in her system. U.S. v. Bethea, 61 M.J. 184 (C.A.A.F. 2005).


Leave a comment

Filed under Appellate Law, Criminal Law, Law, Military Justice, Military Law

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s