United States v. Weston
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
67 M.J. 390 (2009)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Staff Sergeant Daniel A. Weston (defendant), a senior court reporter, and Staff Sergeant ME, a female court reporter, shared a bathroom at work. ME found a camera hidden in an electric razor on the bathroom shelf and notified the Provost Marshall’s Office (PMO) and Daniel’s wife, Mrs. Weston. Military police went to the Westons’ home to locate Daniel and take him to the PMO. Mrs. Weston was given permission to accompany her husband. At the PMO, the Westons were placed in separate rooms. When Daniel was asked if he would consent to a search of his home, he objected. Mrs. Weston, who was not informed that her husband had objected, consented to the search and accompanied agents to the home. Daniel’s computer was seized in the search. The computer contained nonconsensual photos of ME changing clothes and using the bathroom, as well as photos of the interior of ME’s home. Prior to his trial, Daniel’s motion to suppress the evidence seized from his home was denied. Daniel was convicted of housebreaking and invasion of privacy. A panel of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals held that the search was unreasonable. In a rehearing en banc, the court reversed the panel’s judgment. Daniel appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stucky, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.