Need MA and MP input....

[HskrVern]

I got into a debate with an new MA today (I say new but I've only got 10 years of Active duty and a bit over one year of security time on me) on an incident that happened a while ago at my airstation.

*incident*

Airman Dumbass (you'll learn later why I picked this name) pulls up to the main gate with proper ID, DoD decals, and current vehicle tags. While Airman Dumbass is getting his ID checked MA2 notices a box of .45 ammo on the front seat. MA2 then instructs Airman Dumbass to put his car in park and proceeds with the current vehicle search procedures. While MA2 is conducting the inspection he finds a loaded shotgun under Airman Dumbass's seat. Airman Dumbass is promptly cuffed and arrested for unauthorized weapons on a federal installation. Airman Dumbass's CO decides to search his room because of this and finds a "weapons cache" in the barracks (against base regs) again Airman Dumbass finds himself in more trouble.

*end incident*

Airman Dumbass was a friggin idiot for not properly registering his firearms and storing them in the free MA gun rental locker (aka the armory) and received a OTH discharge, which I agree with. BUT I have an issue with the legality of the initial vehicle inspection. This was not a random inspection authorized by the Base CO. I am looking right now but I don't believe that ammunition is not restricted (or registered) on base. Having said that I believe that Airman Dumbass was doing illegal things the search that lead to that discovery was inappropriate and his discharge should have been better and the MA that conducted the search should have been formally counceled on proper search procedures. Am I barking up the wrong tree Here? BTW every darn time I roll through the gate after range time I declare my weapons and hand them my registration sheet. Heck I even have written authorization from the Base Security Officer and JAG authorizing me to obtain C&R weapons on base via my TY03 FFL.

[CavTrooper]

When driving onto a Military installiation you consent to full search of your vehicle and person, no ifs ands or buts about it, especiallialy if you are a service member. I dont see anything wrong with what happend and applaud the gate personel for being alert and recognizing something out of place that potentially prevented a larger incident.

[HskrVern]

When driving onto a Military installiation you consent to full search of your vehicle and person, no ifs ands or buts about it, especiallialy if you are a service member. I dont see anything wrong with what happend and applaud the gate personel for being alert and recognizing something out of place that potentially prevented a larger incident.

Yes BUT those random searches are by order of the Base Commanding Officer and not at the whim of a MA/MP. Just like room inspections at the barracks, they must be approved.

[CavTrooper]

Random search or search for cause? Im thinking if he saw ammo, he had cause to investigate further given the restrictions on firearms on military installations. Either way, a MP or MA or whatever has the general military authority to conduct whatever investigation is appropriate, given the fact that this service member was disciplined and discharged, the MA/MP most likely did everything correctly.

[CavTrooper]

BTW, room inspections dont need a Base CDRs approval, as an NCO, i can conduct a health and welfare check of my soldiers living quarters and vehicle inspections at any time.

[phroggunner]

The ammunition was seen during a lawful stop (the front gate) and gave the MA a reasonable belief that airman dumbass was potentially breaking the law with a weapon to accompany said ammunition (probable cause). This made it a lawful search.

BTW, room inspections dont need a Base CDRs approval, as an NCO, i can conduct a health and welfare check of my soldiers living quarters and vehicle inspections at any time.

True, however without probable cause you cannot search items, even government issued, if your soldiers have a reasonable expectation of privacy (i.e. wall lockers).

[Big_T]

There is a big old sign right around the gate area that says something like: All personnel and possessions under their control are subject to search etc. etc. (I can't seem to find the exact text). Pretty sure it's part of Title 10, US Code. Basically it means anybody aboard a DoD installation is subject to search at any time for any reason. Ask at your legal office if you have other questions or concerns.

[desertram800]

It wasn't a random search, the box of ammo was in plain view, which gave probable cause to believe that a greater crime (the felony offense of bringing a firearm unlawfully onto a government facility) was present. With that PC, it therefore gave the MA2 the right to search via the Exigency search or Emergancy search (to prevent harm or further harm or to prevent destruction or loss of evidence, they can search without a 5580/10 and 5580/9 (affidavit and search authorization)). Plus, being in a barracks room, you cannot have firearms no matter what, they can only be registered in you live in base housing. If you have firearms and live in the barracks, then you can store them in the base armory. Plus, there are the signs at every gate that clearly state that any vehicle entering the property is consent to search at any time. If he had refused the search, then he would have promptly been escorted off the base, decals scraped, and appropriate report would have been filed.

Searches are a touchy subject, being military we are subject to other searches that normal civilians would consider a violation of their constitutional rights. However, we are still also protected. Plus, the CO of the base is the same as a judge, if he was presented a 5580/10 (affidavit for a search, which clearly explains the scope of the search, and approves it and issues a 5580/9, which is the search authorization, it's the same as a search warrant. Done, and done. I also believe that bringing the ammunition alone, even if there wasn't a firearm present, is still federal offense, and the ammo was in plain sight.

In my opinion, given the said story, everyone but the defendant was in the right, and the bad guy got off easy...

[desertram800]

Was this at Tinker?