## Facts

- First Sergeant Sharp was told by a member of his command that there was a drug problem in two platoons.
- Rather than order urinalysis testing of all platoon members, Sharp chose about 20 soldiers for testing based on his view that they were likely using illegal drugs.
- Sharp also questioned certain platoon members about the rumored drug problem after advising them of their rights.
- Staff Sergeant Keith W. Campbell was selected for testing because Sharp had seen Campbell associating with a soldier who had previously failed a drug test.
- Campbell’s urinalysis tested positive for cocaine.
- One day after the test results were received, an investigator interviewed Campbell, advised him of his rights, and Campbell confessed to cocaine use.
- At Campbell’s court-martial for wrongful use of cocaine (Article 112a, UCMJ), the defense moved to suppress the urinalysis result and the confession as products of an unreasonable search and seizure.
- The military judge denied the suppression motion; Campbell was convicted. The Army Court of Military Review affirmed, and Campbell appealed to the United States Court of Military Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the command-directed urinalysis of selected soldiers, chosen based on suspected drug use, qualified as a lawful “inspection” under Military Rule of Evidence 313(b) rather than a search.
2. If the urinalysis was not a valid inspection, whether the urinalysis result had to be suppressed as the product of an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment and the Military Rules of Evidence.
3. Whether Campbell’s confession, obtained after the positive result and prompted by it, was inadmissible as derivative evidence.

## Decision

- The court held the urinalysis did not qualify as a valid inspection under M.R.E. 313(b) because the selection was based on individualized suspicion rather than neutral criteria associated with unit readiness or administrative needs.
- Because the testing functioned as an investigatory search and was not supported by probable cause and proper authorization, the urinalysis result was inadmissible.
- The court also held Campbell’s confession was tied to the unlawful urinalysis result and was not shown to be sufficiently separated from the illegal search; the confession was suppressed as derivative evidence.
- The court set aside the findings and sentence and returned the case for further proceedings consistent with suppression of the urinalysis and confession.

## Legal Principles

- A lawful “inspection” under M.R.E. 313(b) must have a primary administrative purpose (such as unit security, military fitness, or good order and discipline) and may not be used as a device to obtain evidence for a court-martial.
- When only part of a unit is tested, hand-picking members because they are suspected of drug use strongly indicates an investigatory purpose; the government must show the testing was genuinely administrative rather than evidence-gathering.
- If the urinalysis is not a valid inspection, it is a search that must satisfy Fourth Amendment standards and applicable military search rules (including proper authorization based on probable cause).
- Evidence obtained by exploiting an unlawful search, including a confession prompted by an illegal urinalysis result, is inadmissible unless the government proves a sufficient break in the causal chain (such as attenuation or an independent source).

## Conclusion

United States v. Campbell holds that a command-directed urinalysis targeting specific soldiers based on suspicion is not a valid inspection under M.R.E. 313(b); treated as an unlawful search, its results must be suppressed, and a confession obtained shortly after and prompted by the tainted result is likewise inadmissible, requiring the conviction dependent on that evidence to be set aside.


United States v. Campbell, 41 M.J. 177 (1994)