## Facts

- Specialist Robert C. Huntzinger was deployed at Forward Operating Base (FOB) Loyalty, Iraq, where a general order restricted possession of certain pornography.
- A soldier reported to the company commander, CPT Aaron Miller, that another soldier had child pornography on a laptop.
- CPT Miller directed the first sergeant, 1SG Joseph Goodwater, to investigate.
- 1SG Goodwater interviewed the informant and another soldier; the other soldier voluntarily displayed images from his own computer, leading 1SG Goodwater to believe Huntzinger’s laptop likely contained child pornography.
- 1SG Goodwater requested authority to search and seize Huntzinger’s computer equipment.
- CPT Miller authorized seizure of Huntzinger’s laptop and external hard drive from Huntzinger’s living quarters at the FOB.
- 1SG Goodwater entered Huntzinger’s room and seized the laptop and detachable hard drive.
- CPT Miller personally examined the devices after seizure and found extensive child pornography.
- At a general court-martial, Huntzinger was convicted of two violations of a lawful general order (Article 92) and possession of child pornography (Article 134) and received a bad-conduct discharge and confinement, among other punishments.
- Huntzinger moved to suppress the computer evidence, arguing lack of privacy at the FOB, lack of a neutral and detached authorizing official, lack of probable cause, and inapplicability of inevitable discovery; the military judge denied suppression.
- The Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the military judge erred by concluding soldiers at FOB Loyalty had no reasonable expectation of privacy “in any regard,” and whether that affected the search’s validity.
2. Whether the commander who authorized seizure and then reviewed the devices failed to act as a “neutral and detached” authorizing official under Mil. R. Evid. 315(d) and the Fourth Amendment.
3. Whether the inevitable-discovery doctrine could justify admission absent independent investigatory activities or proof of routine practices that would have led to discovery.
4. Whether probable cause supported the search authorization for Huntzinger’s laptop and external hard drive.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces affirmed the denial of the suppression motion and affirmed the convictions and sentence.
- The court rejected the view that soldiers at the FOB categorically lacked privacy interests; Huntzinger had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his personal electronic devices, even though diminished by deployment conditions.
- The court held the commander’s authorization satisfied Fourth Amendment and Mil. R. Evid. 315(d) neutrality requirements despite his disciplinary oversight and later review of the seized items.
- The court held probable cause supported the authorization based on information obtained and relayed by 1SG Goodwater linking child pornography to Huntzinger’s devices and quarters.
- Because the search was lawful and supported by probable cause, the court did not rely on inevitable discovery to admit the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- The Fourth Amendment applies in deployed military settings; service members may retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in personal property such as laptops, though operational conditions can diminish that expectation.
- Under Mil. R. Evid. 315, a commander may authorize a search of persons or property under command if the commander acts as a neutral and detached authorizing official and the authorization is supported by probable cause.
- A commander does not lose neutrality merely by exercising ordinary command responsibilities, including directing preliminary inquiries and maintaining unit discipline; disqualification requires abandonment of the neutral role in favor of active law-enforcement participation.
- Probable cause under Mil. R. Evid. 315(f)(2) exists when, under the totality of the circumstances, there is a reasonable belief evidence will be found in the place to be searched.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the command-authorized seizure and search of Huntzinger’s laptop and external hard drive in a deployed environment, holding that the commander remained neutral and detached when issuing the authorization and that the facts known at the time established probable cause, making the evidence admissible without resort to inevitable discovery.


United States v. Huntzinger, 69 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2010)