United States v. Loukas
United States Court of Military Appeals
29 M.J. 385 (1990)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
While on a military flight from Panama to Bolivia to pick up cargo, Airman John Loukas (defendant) began acting irrationally, having hallucinations, and perspiring despite the cool temperature. The flight’s crew chief knew that Loukas had been out late the night before and questioned Loukas about what drugs he had taken. Loukas initially denied taking any drugs. However, concerned about the safety of Loukas, the rest of the flight crew, and the aircraft, the crew chief continued to question Loukas. Loukas eventually admitted that he had taken cocaine. Loukas was later charged with using cocaine and tried by court-martial. Loukas moved to suppress his statement to the crew chief. Loukas argued that the statement was inadmissible because the crew chief had questioned Loukas without first giving him an Article 31 warning about (1) the nature of the accusation against him and (2) Loukas’s right to refuse to make a statement. The suppression motion was denied, and the statement was admitted at trial. Loukas was convicted. The Court of Military Review found that Loukas’s statement to the crew chief was inadmissible without an Article 31 warning and set aside the conviction. The government (plaintiff) appealed to the Court of Military Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sullivan, J.)
Concurrence (Cox, J.)
Dissent (Everett, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.