Motion to Suppress Statements - Failure to Provide Rights Advisement

The United States Constitution and Article 31(b) of the UCMJ require rights advisements before interrogations or requests for statements. 

The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (C.A.A.F.) has repeatedly recognized that rights advisements have a particular significance in the military because the effect of “superior rank or official position upon one subject to military law, [is such that] the mere asking of a question under [certain] circumstances is the equivalent of a command.”  United States v. Harvey, 37 M.J. 143 (C.M.A. 1993) 

Further, Congress has enacted the exclusionary provision of Article 31 (d) as a strict enforcement mechanism to protect a service member’s Article 31 (b) rights.  United States v. Swift, 53 M.J. 439, 448 (C.A.A.F. 2000).

Mil. R. Evid. 305(c) requires that a suspect be read his or her Article 31 rights when “[a] person subject to the code . . . request[s] any statement from an accused or a person suspected of an offense.”

​The Article 31(b) warning requirements can also apply to civilian investigators working with the military. Mil. R. Evid. 305(c) applies to civilians (1) “[w]hen the scope and character of the cooperative efforts demonstrate that the two investigations merged into an invisible entity” and (2) “when the civilian investigator acts in furtherance of any military investigation, or in any sense as an instrument of the military[.]” United States v. Payne, 47 M.J. 37, 42 (C.A.A.F. 1997) (citing United States v. Quillen, 27 M.J. 312, 314 (C.M.A. 1988).