United States v. Conliffe

On two occasions, Mark R. Conliffe (defendant), a cadet at the United States Military Academy, broke into the locker room of an Academy women’s varsity sports team, hid a video camera, and secretly recorded members of the team as they entered and exited the showers. Conliffe also unlawfully entered the barracks room of a female cadet, hid a video camera, and secretly recorded her changing clothes. Conliffe entered guilty pleas to three specifications of housebreaking. The underlying offense for each housebreaking specification was Conliffe’s use of a device to surreptitiously record his victims, which was categorized as conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. Before accepting Conliffe’s guilty pleas, the military judge conducted a providence inquiry. The judge described the elements of housebreaking to Conliffe and ensured that Conliffe admitted to unlawfully entering the properties. The judge then described the two elements of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman and ensured that Conliffe believed that his actions constituted conduct unbecoming. After conducting the providence inquiry, the military judge accepted Conliffe’s guilty pleas, and the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Conliffe appealed, arguing that his guilty pleas were improvident because the underlying offense for each housebreaking specification—conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman—was a purely military offense.