The Locked Pelican Case Before PCS
At a stateside Army post, a company commander calls the CID office at 1910. A specialist in his company reports that Spc. R., who is on restriction for a prior alcohol incident, keeps a locked black Pelican case under his barracks bed and has been trying to sell 'military gear' in a group chat. A second Soldier says he saw R. carry a green bag from the supply point after hours. The commander wants CID to search R.'s room and the case tonight because R. is scheduled to PCS in 72 hours. The commander says he has 'enough' and will sign whatever is needed. R. is not present; his roommate is in the room and says R. keeps the case locked and has the only key. The supply point reports no confirmed loss yet, and the group chat screenshots are undated. The commander is impatient and asks the agent to 'just go in' before the room is cleared.
1. What legal authority, if any, supports searching R.'s barracks room and the locked case, and what should the agent advise the commander before any entry? Explain the probable-cause analysis and the scope of authorization.
Read the worked answer
Start with the rule: a barracks room is not a free-fire zone. Under MRE 315, a search of a Soldier's room and personal containers requires probable cause and authorization by a commander or military judge, unless a recognized exception applies. An inspection under MRE 313 is not a substitute. The commander may authorize, but he must make an independent probable-cause determination; he cannot 'sign whatever is needed.' The tip is thin: one Soldier may have a motive, the second saw only a green bag, the supply point has no confirmed loss, and the screenshots are undated. The PCS date supports a timing concern, but urgency is not a substitute for probable cause. The agent should advise the commander to (1) articulate the facts behind each source, (2) corroborate with supply records, gate video, or group-chat metadata, and (3) describe the room and the locked case in the authorization. A locked container needs probable cause and explicit scope; do not treat the room authorization as automatically covering it. If the commander still authorizes, document his finding and the exact scope; do not rely on his rank or on 'just go in.'
2. During a lawful search, the agent sees R.'s personal laptop open on the desk with a folder titled with a term associated with child sexual abuse material. The agent wants to open the folder. May he? What should he do?
Read the worked answer
Analysis: the laptop was in plain view during a lawful search, but plain view has three limits: lawful presence, incriminating character immediately apparent, and lawful right of access. A folder name alone may be enough to seize the laptop if the agent can articulate why it is immediately apparent as contraband, but it is not enough to browse the drive. Opening the folder is a separate search. The agent should stop, photograph the screen as it appears, note the exact text and time, seize the laptop under the plain-view doctrine, and maintain chain of custody. He should then seek a new search authorization or consent for a forensic examination of the computer. He should not open files, run keyword searches, or let anyone else do so without authority. If the original authorization was limited to stolen gear, the agent must be ready to justify why the file name was immediately apparent and why seizure was necessary. Document; do not expand scope by curiosity.
3. The roommate says, 'You can search my stuff too, I have nothing to hide.' The agent finds a small amount of marijuana in the roommate's wall locker. What issues arise?
Read the worked answer
Consent must be voluntary and limited to the area the person controls. The roommate can consent to his own wall locker and common areas, but not to R.'s locked case or private space. Once the marijuana is found, the roommate becomes a suspect in a possession offense under Article 112a. The agent should stop, avoid further questioning about the marijuana, and give Article 31(b) rights before any interrogation questions. The agent may seek consent to search further or obtain search authorization. He should document the exact words of consent, the time, and the scope, and should not imply that the roommate must consent or that command will go easier. If the roommate withdraws consent, stop. The discovery also creates a conflict of interest in using the roommate as a witness against R.; disclose it. The marijuana should be seized and handled like any evidence, with chain of custody.