United States v. Huntzinger
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
69 M.J. 1 (2010)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Army Captain Aaron Miller received information that digital child pornography might be circulating within the barracks in his unit. Miller asked First Sergeant Joseph Goodwater to look into the matter. Goodwater spoke to the informant and a private about the matter. Based on these conversations and information that the private voluntarily provided from his computer, Goodwater believed that a search of the laptop owned by Specialist Robert Huntzinger (defendant) was likely to yield evidence relating to the investigation. Goodwater presented this information to Miller and asked for authorization to search for and seize Huntzinger’s laptop and any hard drives from Huntzinger’s barracks room. Miller authorized Goodwater to conduct the search and seizure. Goodwater entered Huntzinger’s room and seized his laptop and external hard drive. Miller searched the laptop and hard drive and discovered extensive evidence of child pornography on both devices. Huntzinger moved to suppress the evidence from the devices, arguing that the device search was unauthorized. Specifically, Huntzinger claimed that Miller’s involvement in the investigation meant that Miller was not a neutral party and, therefore, that Miller’s search authorization had been unlawful. Huntzinger’s motion was denied, and the evidence was used to convict Huntzinger. Huntzinger appealed the conviction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Effron, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 798,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.