David Matthew Wilson

Investigative Procedures in the Military: A Search for Absolutes

Perhaps the greatest dilemma facing any democracy is that of balancing the demands of personal freedom with those made in the name of social, economic or military necessity. This dilemma is especially evident in the efforts of civilian courts to regulate police procedures used in the arrest and interrogation of suspected lawbreakers. Reacting against supposed police abuse of individual rights, these courts are rapidly moving toward absolute standards of investigative conduct which, if violated, will result in automatic reversal of an accuseds conviction. The demands of necessity are even more sharply evident in the armed forces; in an environment where the overriding goal is to maintain superior force of arms, military law has sometimes seemed harsh law which is frequently cast in very sweeping and vague terms [emphasizing] the iron hand of discipline more than it does the even scales of justice.2 An appreciation of this dilemma, together with changes in the nature of our military establishment, have resulted in a movement by the military courts, strikingly parallel to that of their civilian counterparts, toward similar absolute standards of police conduct. This Comment will explore various aspects of the evolution in general, with emphasis on developing standards regarding search and seizure, self-incrimination, and the accuseds right to counsel. I