US Air Force v. E-4 [Article 112a, Article 92, Article 89, Article 111, Article 134)
Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska (JBER)]
Client was originally facing an article 15 and possibly administrative separation for spice use. The client made multiple statements to OSI hoping to cut a deal. However, his conversations with OSI resulted in a search of his car and room. OSI however seized multiple items from his room that was not part of the original search warrant which would have violated Article 92 and possibly Article 121. Because these items were not part of the search warrant, a Judge would have suppressed the items from being entered as evidence. Ultimately, the defense successfully negotiated those alleged offenses away. As the case progressed, the client continued to commit misconduct. His continued misconduct resulted in 5 months of pretrial confinement at the Anchorage Confinement Facility. Over the course of the confinement, the defense team learned that the Anchorage Jail was not following procedures laid out in a memorandum of agreement that it had agreed to follow when housing Air Force Airmen in confinement. A thorough search of the case law revealed that our client was not the first client that had issues with the Anchorage Confinement Facility. In our brief to the Judge for Pre-trial confinement credit, we cited U.S. v. Zarbatany, 70 M.J. 169 (C.A.A.F. 2011) where another airman was subjected to unacceptable standards while in confinement at the Anchorage confinement facility. Ultimately the Judge ended up giving our client 11 months of confinement credit. Over the course of the case, the defense team negotiated a deal on behalf of the client for 24 months of confinement.
Result: Guilty Plea. 1 year of confinement adjudged. The Air Force decided to forgo the remaining confinement credit and the client was able to go free the very day of the Courts Martial.