A tale from my younger days, dear readers. (I mean, it would have to be from my younger days, wouldn’t it?)
Upon joining the Marines, I went though boot camp in San Diego, followed by three weeks of additional combat training at nearby Camp Pendleton. After this, I was bussed to 29 Palms, California, out in the middle of the desert, for my next round of training. One of the new experiences I had at 29 Palms was that we were put up in barracks. At boot camp and MCT, everyone sleeps in squadbays – large open rooms with rows of bunk beds. But now, we were at a proper barracks, with individual barracks rooms. Granted, in the Marine Corps it was common for lower ranking enlisted Marines to be assigned three or four to a single room, but compared to what we had experienced so far this was an incredible luxury.
One day early on, we were suddenly awakened at 5am. The Marines who ran the training program were having everyone line up in the hallways and one by one, they went through each room, calling in the Marines who lived in that particular room, and searched it top to bottom. They’d make you remove the locks that kept your wall locker secure so they could search through everything. They were looking for any unauthorized materials anyone might have – underage Marines trying to hide booze was the most common thing they’d discover. These kinds of searches would occur every so often for as long as I lived in the barracks.
I didn’t think much of it at the time. But I later came to an interesting realization. It’s often said that while you’re in the Marines, you don’t have any rights, and those in command can do whatever they want, etc. But that’s not true. There actually are various rules and safeguards that must be followed during military investigations, thresholds that must be cleared, rules about how evidence must be collected to be admissible, and so on. So, what was going on here? This was simply a mass search, without any particular probable cause or evidence of wrongdoing to precipitate it. Thus if they did find that you had a bottle of Jack Daniels hidden in your underwear drawer, wouldn’t that be inadmissible and prevent them from bringing you up on charges?
Well yes, it would – but only if they were actually conducting a search. But that morning in 29 Palms and on all the other occasions, they weren’t searching the barracks. You see, what they were actually doing was performing a “health and comfort inspection,” and no special threshold has to be crossed to carry out a health and comfort inspection beyond “I feel like it.” But when they made you remove the locks from your gear and went searching to ensure that no wasps had set up a nest in your underwear drawer, if they just so happened to find a bottle of Jack Daniels, then in that case it absolutely could be used to charge you. Because they didn’t find it while conducting a search! They were only trying to ensure your health and comfort!
The result of this, of course, is that while de jure there were rules and restrictions regarding searches and the admissibility of evidence obtained in a search, de facto it was open season and you could be effectively searched at any time without restriction. The “health and comfort inspection” provided a shortcut around any need for things approaching probable cause or evidence of wrongdoing to warrant a search. And it also showed that when a shortcut around some legal protection exists, that shortcut swiftly becomes the main route.
This is one reason I reflexively oppose anything that might loosen or lower the legal protections for those accused of crimes. As soon as an exception opens up, or a loophole is created, or a shortcut presents itself, that will immediately become the main path taken. You shouldn’t crack open any of those doors unless you’re willing for them to be thrown wide open – and you should remember to ask if you want to leave that door open when someone who is your worst political nightmare rises to power.
(1 COMMENTS)