Facts
- Hospital Corpsman Third Class Walter S. Stevenson, U.S. Navy, was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) while the Navy evaluated whether his diabetes warranted permanent retirement or a return to active duty.
- As a condition of TDRL status, Stevenson was required to submit to periodic medical examinations, including blood draws to monitor his diabetes.
- Naval investigators suspected Stevenson of committing a rape of a military dependent approximately five years earlier, while he was on active duty.
- To obtain Stevenson’s DNA for comparison with biological evidence from the rape, investigators arranged for medical personnel to collect an additional blood sample during Stevenson’s required diabetes-related blood draw.
- During the appointment, medical staff inserted a needle once and filled two tubes from that single venipuncture: one tube for diabetes testing and a second tube for law-enforcement DNA testing.
- Stevenson was later charged with rape under Article 120, UCMJ, based in part on the DNA testing derived from the second tube.
- Stevenson moved to suppress the DNA evidence, arguing the second tube was unlawfully obtained.
- The Government argued the evidence was admissible under Military Rule of Evidence (Mil. R. Evid.) 312(f), which concerns evidence obtained from an intrusion conducted for a valid medical purpose.
- The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals ruled, in substance, that applying Mil. R. Evid. 312(f) to a person on the TDRL would violate the Fourth Amendment because the rule was not justified by military necessity for someone not performing military missions.
- The case came to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) for review of whether Mil. R. Evid. 312(f) and the Military Rules of Evidence apply to TDRL members.
Issues
- Whether the Military Rules of Evidence, including Mil. R. Evid. 312(f), apply to servicemembers on the Temporary Disability Retired List.
- Whether the lower court erred by concluding that applying Mil. R. Evid. 312(f) to TDRL members is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment because TDRL members are comparable to civilians for search-and-seizure purposes.
Decision
- CAAF held that Mil. R. Evid. 312(f) applies to servicemembers on the TDRL.
- CAAF rejected the lower court’s view that TDRL status removes a member from the reach of the Military Rules of Evidence or makes application of Mil. R. Evid. 312(f) unconstitutional on the theory that no military needs exist.
- CAAF reversed the lower court’s legal conclusion and remanded for further proceedings consistent with CAAF’s ruling.
Legal Principles
- Members on the TDRL remain in a continuing military status and remain subject to court-martial jurisdiction; that status supports application of the Military Rules of Evidence in later courts-martial.
- Under Mil. R. Evid. 1101, the Military Rules of Evidence generally apply to courts-martial unless the Manual for Courts-Martial provides a specific exception; the rules do not contain an exception for TDRL members.
- Mil. R. Evid. 312(f) permits admission of evidence obtained as a result of an intrusion conducted for a valid medical purpose, even if the Government later seeks to use the evidence for law-enforcement objectives.
- A lower court may not carve out a categorical Fourth Amendment exclusion for an entire class of military members (such as TDRL personnel) when statutes and military law treat that class as remaining within the military community for jurisdictional and regulatory purposes.
Conclusion
United States v. Stevenson, 53 M.J. 257 (2000), held that servicemembers on the Temporary Disability Retired List are subject to the Military Rules of Evidence, including Mil. R. Evid. 312(f), and CAAF reversed the lower court’s contrary constitutional ruling and remanded for additional proceedings applying that rule in Stevenson’s case.