Sergeant (E-7), and PVT Smokey Case - Essay Example

Marijuana has been classified as one of the drugs, which no servicemen are supposed to use or have within the barracks (Shanor & Hogue, 2013). In the case of PTV Smokey, it was clear that he had contravened the provisions of article 122. He was not only caught using marijuana, but he was also in possession of it. For this reason, he is liable for prosecution in the martial courts. His case is admissible, in the sense that the act itself has grounds in the military laws. However, how the evidence was gathered may lead to the termination of the case, as explained below.

Like civilians, the military is protected by the Fourth Amendment constitutional provisions (Shanor & Hogue, 2013). Under this, ‘unreasonable searches or seizures’ are not allowed. Any evidence gathered through this illegal means is inadmissible in the court martial. Critically analyzing the case of STV Smokey, it is clear that the Platoon Sergeant did not have a search warrant that would have facilitated his search and seizure of marijuana. The whole process was flawed, including the way he forced himself on the premises of the suspect. Under the MRE 314 and 315, it is made clear that the Bill of Rights also applies fully to all military officers (Laurence, 2010). This means that they enjoy the right to privacy just like civilians. STV Smokey was right when he informed Platoon Sergeant that he had violated his right to privacy by forcing himself into the house. This was irrespective of whether there was a need to check the possession of the drugs.

Before obtaining a search warrant, the investigating officer must prove that there is indeed probable cause. This refers to the grounds upon which the search has to be conducted. The case provided, there was enough ground for searching. This is demonstrated by the fact that the sergeant had already smelled what, according to his experience, seemed to be marijuana. Despite this, though, he erred in the manner in which he approached the situation. He should have obtained an ‘authorization to search’ from impartial legally acceptable personnel. Under the MRE 515 (d), such persons may include the military commander, a military judge, or a magistrate (Shanor & Hogue, 2013). All this is missing, meaning that the obtained evidence may be rejected in court.

While the possession and use of marijuana are illegal, the court is likely to rule in favor of STV Smokey. In the martial court, the grand jury may use Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961, as a precedence. In this case, the court of appeal overturned the earlier ruling and found the state to have erred since the evidence was obtained illegally, through the contravention of the Fourth Amendment.