Violation of Military Law Not Basis for Fourth Amendment Suppression

US v. Seerden: Seerden was in the Navy, stationed in California, but at a training in Virginia, when he was accused of sexual assault. As part of that investigation, military investigators wanted to search his phone and could do so with the permission of “commanding officer,” but were unclear whether that was the commander in California or Virginia. After consulting with JAG authorities, permission was obtained from Seerden’s commander in California. While doing an initial scan of the phone a technician saw what he thought might be child pornography. A civilian search warrant was obtained and there was, indeed, child pornography on Seerden’s phone. The district court denied Seerden’s motion to suppress, holding that while the initial search was illegal, the second was saved by good faith. Seerden pleaded guilty to production of child pornography and was sentenced to 324 months in prison.

On appeal the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress, but on different grounds. The district court had concluded that the initial search violated military law because investigators had sought permission to search from the wrong commander – it should have come from the one in Virginia. The Fourth Circuit disagreed with that conclusion because, ultimately, the only law that matters is the Fourth Amendment and whether the search was reasonable and a violation of military law does not make the search unreasonable. Even the violation of military law controlled, the evidence from the first search would still have been admissible under the good faith exception, given how unclear the military law issue was.